9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Default in Payment of Rent 2. Illegal Subletting 3. Interpretation of Amended Provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 4. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution 5. Relief against Forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act 6. High Court's Jurisdiction in Reversing Findings of Fact 7. Possession of Defendant No. 6 on the Relevant Date 8. Reopening and Hearing of Writ Petitions by the High Court Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Default in Payment of Rent: The tenants were found to be defaulters in payment of rent for more than six months, and they did not pay the arrears within one month of the notice of demand as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Despite depositing the arrears later, the mandatory provisions of Section 12(3)(a) necessitated a decree for eviction. The Court emphasized that the tenants could not claim protection under Section 12(3)(b) as they did not raise a dispute regarding the standard rent within the stipulated time. 2. Illegal Subletting: The Trial Court initially found that the tenants had illegally sublet the garage to Defendant No. 6. However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser and not a sub-tenant. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the landlord's admission in the pleadings was not binding due to the proviso to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, which allows the Court to require proof beyond admissions. 3. Interpretation of Amended Provisions: The tenants sought the benefit of the amended Sub-section (3) of Section 12, which came into effect on 1st October 1987. The Court held that the amended provisions did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to the tenants' case. The Court also noted that the tenants did not comply with the requirement of paying simple interest on the arrears as mandated by the amended provision. 4. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution: The tenants argued for relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders for complete justice. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 142 does not permit the Court to ignore mandatory statutory provisions and thereby cause injustice to the other party. 5. Relief against Forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act: The tenants contended that they were entitled to relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that Section 114 applies to cases of forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act, not to statutory provisions like Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Act. 6. High Court's Jurisdiction in Reversing Findings of Fact: The High Court reversed the Trial Court's finding that the garage was illegally sublet, ruling that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser. The Supreme Court upheld this reversal, noting that the High Court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the subletting claim and the tenants' consistent assertion that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser. 7. Possession of Defendant No. 6 on the Relevant Date: The High Court found that Defendant No. 6 was not in possession of the garage on 1st February 1973, as it was under the possession of a court-appointed receiver. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue further, given the conclusion that Defendant No. 6 was a trespasser. 8. Reopening and Hearing of Writ Petitions by the High Court: Defendant No. 6 challenged the High Court's decision to reopen and hear the writ petitions after delivering its judgment. The Supreme Court found no merit in this challenge, noting that the judgment had only been dictated and not delivered, and the reopening was necessary to address a factual issue regarding the death of a defendant. Conclusion: Both appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court upholding the High Court's findings on all major issues. The tenants were found to be defaulters in rent payment, and Defendant No. 6 was deemed a trespasser, not entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. The Court also clarified the limitations of Article 142 and Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in providing relief in this case.
|
