Whether burden of proof is on tenant to prove that withholding of essential service by landlord was without just or sufficient cause?

A plain reading of S. 24 reveals 6 broad ingredients, namely, (I) that there must exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the premises; (ii) that the supply or service in question must be an essential supply or service; (iii) tha such essential supply or service was enjoyed by the tenants; (iv) that it was cut off or withheld; (v) that the cutting off or withholding was by the landlord himself or through any person acting or purporting to act on his behalf; and (vi) that the cutting off or withholding of such essential service was without just or sufficient cause.

7. In the present case, there is no controversy regarding the first three ingredients of sec. 24 for it is nobody's case that they are not satisfied. Also not in dispute is the fact that this essential lift service was enjoyed by the tenants but is no longer available to them. The question that arises is whether this essential service was "cut-off" or "withheld" by the landlords and, if so., whether such cutting off or withholding was "Without just or sufficient cause". The burden of establishing the cutting off or withholding the essential supply or service would undoubtedly be on the tenant. The Court would then have to ascertain whether the cutting off or withholding was 'without just or sufficient cause'. The tenant cannot be expected to establish the negative, viz. That the cutting off or withholding by the landlord was "without just or sufficient cause'. In order to escape inculpation, the burden would be on the landlord to establish the positive, viz. That the cutting off or withholding of the essential supply or service was for "just or sufficient cause". That is for the landlord to establish and the burden is heavily upon him to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Special Civil applin. No. 2350 of 1977

Decided On: 24.03.1980

Decided On: 25.03.1980

J. Satyavrata and Anr. Vs. Mohamedbhai Abdothussen Sadiq Bahreinwalla and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.K. Desai and B. Lentin, JJ.

Citation: 1981 MHLJ 413

Print Page

Whether Competent authority can stay proceeding before him on ground of pendency of civil suit?

Thus, the special provision has been made under the said Act for evicting the licensees of premises given on licence for residence. A special procedure laid down under Chapter VIII governs the application made under Section 24 of the said Act. The said Act contemplates a summary disposal of the applications. By the very nature of the proceedings as reflected from the aforesaid statutory provisions, the jurisdiction of Competent Authority is very limited. It can decide a dispute between a landlord (lincesor) and the licensee. It is obvious that considering the summary nature of the proceedings, issue of title to the disputed premises can never be decided in such proceedings. The Sub-section (1) of Section 24 starts with non obstante clause. Moreover Section 39 of the said Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of Chapter VIII. Therefore, pendency of a suit governed by Section 33 of the said Act or a suit on title cannot prevent the Competent Authority from deciding an application for eviction. There is no statutory power vesting the Competent Authority to stay the proceedings of the application under Section 24 of the said Act on the ground of pendency of a civil suit relating to the property.

Bombay High Court

Surendra B. Agarwal & Anr vs Aml Merchandising Pvt Ltd on 11 September, 2009

Bench: A.S. Oka

Citation: 2010(5)BomCR331,2010(1)MHLJ223 Bom

Print Page