9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction. 2. Default in payment of rent. 3. Lawful sub-tenancy claim. 4. Contempt of court by respondents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reasonable and bona fide requirement for eviction: The appellant, the owner of the bungalow "Villa Hormazd," leased two floors to Mayer Mills Ltd. in 1948. Following the appellant's father's death in 1949, the appellant became the landlady. Respondent No. 1, B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd., succeeded Mayer Mills Ltd. and was in possession as a tenant. The appellant filed R.A.E. No. 763/6563 of 1966 in the Small Causes Court at Bombay for eviction on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The Trial Court decreed this eviction suit on September 13, 1975. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 appealed, but their appeal was dismissed. 2. Default in payment of rent: During the pendency of the reasonable and bona fide requirement suit, the appellant filed another suit for eviction based on default in rent payment for over six months. This suit was initially dismissed due to the decree in the first suit but was later allowed on appeal, leading to a decree for eviction against respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 challenged these decrees in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on March 5, 1983. 3. Lawful sub-tenancy claim: Respondent No. 2, Chairman of respondent No. 1, filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes on February 27, 1987, claiming lawful sub-tenancy and seeking a declaration that he was not bound by the eviction decrees. This suit was dismissed, but an appeal led to an interim injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with respondent No. 2's possession, thus preventing the execution of the eviction decree. 4. Contempt of court by respondents: The appellant filed Contempt Petition No. 106 of 1987 in the Bombay High Court, alleging that respondents violated the undertaking given to the court. The undertaking was that respondent No. 1 would not part with possession or create third-party interests in the suit premises. The learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the contempt petition, stating that the undertaking did not imply actual possession and that respondent No. 1 was not guilty of contempt. The appellant appealed this decision. Analysis and Judgment: Contempt of Court: The Supreme Court examined the facts and submissions. It was argued by the appellant's counsel that respondent No. 1's undertaking implied possession and the ability to hand over vacant possession after eight weeks if no interim relief was obtained. The respondents' counsel contended that no contempt was made out as there was no mandatory order to vacate and no wilful breach of an undertaking. The Supreme Court found that respondent No. 1 misled the court by applying for time to vacate while suppressing the claim of sub-tenancy by respondent No. 2, who was the Chairman of respondent No. 1. The court concluded that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted in collusion to defeat the decree for possession. Final Order: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, to take possession of the suit premises and appoint the appellant as the agent. The possession was to be handed over to the appellant within eight weeks. The court also clarified that this order supersedes any interim orders from other courts and allowed respondent No. 2 to apply for vacation or variation of the order if he could establish his sub-tenancy claim. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of Rs. 20,000 jointly and severally. No action was taken against respondent No. 3. This comprehensive analysis covers all relevant issues, preserving significant phrases and legal terminology from the original text.
|
