2009 (8) TMI 1282 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of taxes and water charges.
2. Reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords for their own use and occupation.
3. Challenge to the orders of ejectment.
4. Condition for stay of execution of the decree.
5. Applicability of decisions in Atma Ram Properties and Niyas Ahmad Khan.
6. Definition of "tenant" under the Bombay Rent Act.
7. Reasonableness of provisions in the Bombay Rent Act.
8. Heritability of tenancy and statutory tenant rights.
9. Judicial approach towards landlord-tenant relationship.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default in Payment of Taxes and Water Charges:
The appellant suffered a decree of ejectment passed by the Court of Small Causes on June 30, 2003, on grounds of default in payment of taxes and water charges as stipulated under Section 13(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

2. Reasonable and Bona Fide Need of the Landlords:
The decree was also based on the reasonable and bona fide need of the landlords for their own use and occupation in terms of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.

3. Challenge to the Orders of Ejectment:
The appellant's appeal against the decree was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. The appellant then filed a writ petition which the Bombay High Court declined to entertain, suggesting the appellant to file a civil revision application under Section 35F(2) of the Act. The High Court admitted the Civil Revision and stayed the execution of the decree subject to the condition of monthly deposits.

4. Condition for Stay of Execution of the Decree:
The High Court stayed the execution of the decree on the condition that the appellant would deposit Rs. 5,40,000/- every month from the date of the decree. The appellant found this condition onerous, while the respondents maintained that the amount was less than the current market rent.

5. Applicability of Decisions in Atma Ram Properties and Niyas Ahmad Khan:
The Supreme Court found no conflict between the decisions in Atma Ram Properties and Niyas Ahmad Khan. In Atma Ram Properties, the Court upheld the condition imposed by the Tribunal for the tenant to deposit an amount higher than the contractual rent during the pendency of the appeal. In Niyas Ahmad Khan, the Court observed that in writ petitions by landlords against rejection of eviction petitions, there is no scope for interim directions to the tenant to pay higher rent.

6. Definition of "Tenant" under the Bombay Rent Act:
The appellant argued that under the Bombay Rent Act, a tenant suffering a decree of eviction did not lose the status of 'tenant' and continued to enjoy protections under the Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appellant could not derive support from the decisions in Damadilal and Gian Devi Anand, which were rendered in a different context.

7. Reasonableness of Provisions in the Bombay Rent Act:
The Court noted that the reasonableness of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, or the Bombay Rent Act did not arise in this case but acknowledged that the reasonableness might need to be examined in an appropriate case.

8. Heritability of Tenancy and Statutory Tenant Rights:
The Supreme Court discussed the heritability of tenancy and statutory tenant rights, referring to the decisions in Damadilal and Gian Devi Anand. The Court observed that the determination of contractual tenancy did not extinguish the rights of the tenant, and the tenant continued to retain his estate and interests in the demised premises.

9. Judicial Approach Towards Landlord-Tenant Relationship:
The Court emphasized the need for a balanced and objective approach to the relationship between the landlord and tenant, highlighting that the judicial attitude towards this relationship has evolved over time. The Court reaffirmed the views expressed in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, advocating for a more balanced approach.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against an order or decree of eviction passed under the Rent Act, it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. The Court found the High Court's order just and proper, dismissing the appeal with costs.