Whether licensee who has acquired the status of the deemed tenant as per S 15 A of Bombay Rent Act will retain their position under Maharashtra rent control Act?

  Mr. Wachasundar, secondly, submits that there is no case of deemed tenancy in the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel submits that the provisions of the old rent control law, namely, the Bombay Rent Act have been replaced by the new law of rent control, namely, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ("Act"). Learned Counsel submits that since there is a wholesale repeal followed by a new legislation on the same subject, only those matters under the repealed law, which are saved by Section 58 of the repealing Act, would stand saved. Learned Counsel submits that deemed tenancies of original licensees are not saved under the provisions of Section 58. Learned Counsel relies on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh MANU/SC/0043/1954 : AIR 1955 SC 84 in support of his submission. He also relies on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India MANU/UP/0057/1975 : AIR 1975 Allahabad 239. Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, consequences of such repeal, which are laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, follow, unless as the section itself says, the repealing Act evinces a different intention. What the Supreme Court said in Mohar Singh Pratap Singh's case is that in the case of a simple repeal, there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary opinion, but when the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject, Courts would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act for the purpose of determining whether they indicate a different intention. When courts thus look to the provisions of the new law, they would actually be expected to read the new law as a whole to find out if it evinces any different intention, thereby ruling out the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Looked at it from this point of view, the new Act does not at all indicate that it seeks to do away with all legal consequences which have taken place under, or legal relationships born out of, the provisions of the old law. If anything, it actually affirms such consequences or relationships. The most palpable expression of such affirmation is in the definition of "tenant" in the new Act. Sub-Section (15) of Section 7 of the new Act, which defines the expression 'tenant', includes within it a person, who is a deemed tenant. Deemed tenancy is not provided under the new Act; it is a concept which can only be treated as having been borrowed from the old Rent Act. In other words, it provides that those persons, who had become deemed tenants under the provisions of the then existing law, are to be included within the definition of 'tenant' under it. Our Court, in the case of Hindustan Ferrodo Ltd. vs. Hari Lachman Hasija MANU/MH/0226/2003 : 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 50, has considered this particular aspect of the matter. That was a case, where the petitioners before this court were in possession of suit premises as licensees as of 1 February 1973, claiming to have acquired the status of deemed tenant as from that date. The court held that their status as deemed tenant was not taken away or put an end to by virtue of the provisions of Section 58 or Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioners before the court in Hindustan Ferrodo were a company, which fell within the ambit of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the new Rent Act, and thus, were not entitled to claim benefits, privileges or protection under the new Rent Act and yet, our Court said that the character or status acquired by them as a deemed tenant under the old Act continued and unless the same was put to an end by a procedure known to law, they could not be evicted from the premises. This clearly puts paid to any controversy in that behalf.{Para 7}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7931 of 2019

Decided On: 19.05.2020

 EEPC India  Vs.  Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Provision of Maharashtra rent control Act is not applicable to Insurance Company

 From the aforesaid it is graphically clear that an Insurance

Company is not protected under the 1999 Act. Once it is held

that defendant No. 1, the New India Assurance Company, the

original tenant, is not protected, the question would be whether a

subtenant can be protected under the Act. In the case of Bhatia

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra), it has been clearly

laid down that Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act applies to premises

and not to parties or their relationship. Section 3 uses the term

‘premises’. The provision commences with the non-obstante

clause that the Act does not apply to any premises belonging to

the Government or a local authority. Sub-section 3(1)(b) makes

it clear that the Act does not apply to any bank, public sector

undertaking or certain other categories of tenants. The

Insurance Company is covered under Section 3(1)(b). Thus, as a

logical corollary, the Act does not apply to the premises held by

the Insurance Company who is a tenant.

23. The learned Single Judge has allowed protection to the

Government Department on the foundation that it has become a

tenant. We are disposed to think that the analysis is

fundamentally erroneous. When the Act does not cover the

tenant, namely, the Insurance Company as basically the

exemption applies only to premises and not to any relationship,

the subtenant who becomes a deemed tenant cannot enjoy a

better protection or privilege by ostracizing the concept of

premises which is the spine of the provision.

N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos . 3356-3357/2012

Kesri Commissariat  Vs  Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies,

Dipak Misra , J

Dated:April 03, 2012.
Citation: AIR 2012 SC 1271:2012(5) MHLJ 212 SC

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for getting deemed tenancy as bombay rent Act?

In that view of the matter, only questions that falls for consideration is as to whether the payment of corporation taxes and electricity charges would be covered by the term "license fee or charge" under Sub-Section 4 A of Section 5 of the said Act. Undisputedly, for bringing a license under the ambit of licensee as defined under Section Sub-Section 4(A) of Section 5 of the said Act, a person who is in occupation of the premises has to be so under a subsisting agreement for a license given for a license fee or charge. Only in that event, the licensee who is in occupation of the premises on 1st February, 1973 would be deemed to have become tenant for the purposes of the said Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6215 of 2008

Decided On: 04.05.2011

Shashikant G. Mehta Vs. Soonoo Minoo Khajotia and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2011(4) MHLJ 247

Print Page

Basic concept of deemed tenancy as per Bombay tenancy and agricultural lands Act

On the other hand, Mr. Bhasme has relied on a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of :Dahya Lal and Ors V

Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim reported in (1963) 3 SCR 1. In this case the question was whether a tenant of the mortgagee could be evicted by the mortgagor after the property was redeemed. With reference to Section 4 of the said Act it was held as follows:

"The Act 1948, it is undisputed, seeks to encompass within its beneficent provisions not only tenants who held land for purpose of cultivation under contracts from the land owners but persons who are deemed to the tenants also. The point in controversy is whether a person claiming the status of a deemed tenant must have been cultivating land with the consent or under the authority of the owner. Counsel for the appellants submits that tenancy postulates a relation based on contract between the owner of land, and the person in occupation of the land, and there can be no tenancy without the consent or authority of the owner to the occupation of that land. But the Act has by s. 2(18) devised a special definition of tenant and included therein persons who are not contractual tenants. It would therefore be difficult to assume in construing s. 4 that the person who claims the status of a deemed tenant must be cultivating land with the consent or authority of the owner. The relevant conditions imposed by the statute is only that the person claiming the status of a deemed tenant must be cultivating land "lawfully": it is not the condition that he must cultivate land with the consent of or under authority derived directly from the owner. To import such a condition it is to rewrite the section, and destory its practical utility. A person who derives his right to cultivate land from the owners would normally be a contractual tenant and he will obviously not be a "deemed tenant". Persons such as licencees from the owner may certainly be regarded as falling within the class of persons lawfully cultivating land belonging to others, but it cannot be assumed therefrom that they are the only persons who are covered by the section. The Act affords protection to all persons who hold agricultural land as contractual tenants and subject to the exceptions specified all persons lawfully cultivating lands belonging to others, and it would be unduly restricting the intention of the Legislature to limit the benefit of its provisions to persons who derive their authority from the owner, either under a contract of tenancy, or otherwise. In our view, all persons other than those mentioned in cls. (2), (b) and (c) of s. 4 who lawfully cultivate land belonging to other persons whether or not their authority is derived directly from the owner of the land must be deemed tenants of the land."

Supreme Court of India

Sau. Saraswatibai Trimbak ... vs Damodhar D. Motiwale & Ors on 22 March, 2002

Bench: Syed Shah Quadri, S.N. Variava

Print Page