Whether revision is tenable against order passed in application U/S 29 of Maharashtra rent control Act?

It is true that sub-section (4) of Section 34 provides for a remedy of revision when no appeal lies. It is also true that sub-section (4) makes the use of the word in any suit or proceeding but does not use the word application. Looking to the scheme of Act, 1999, it clearly appears that wherever appeals are provided, a remedy has been provided to the aggrieved party. However, where appeal is not provided; the Legislature wanted to provide a remedy of revision and that is done by way of sub-section (4) of Section 34. The Act is a self-contained Code providing for various remedies to the tenants as well as to the landlords and, therefore, any interpretation which would make the said intention of Legislature nugatory should not be adopted by a Court. In the present case, it is seen that though the word application is absent in sub-section (4), it cannot be said that the remedy of revision against an order on application under sub-clause (d) should be taken away. If such interpretation is adopted, the very purpose of providing remedies under the Act, which is self contained Code would lie in futility. The Court would prefer that which advances the remedy, ubi jus ibi remedium. The Court should always lean to interpret the provision for making the effective remedy available to a litigant or aggrieved party rather than denying it. I am inclined to hold that even an order on an application accepting or rejecting the same for directions to restore essential supply would be a proceeding within the meaning of sub-section(4) of Section 34 and consequently remedy of revision would be available to the aggrieved party.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 5228 of 2011

Decided On: 27.04.2012

Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Narendra Mohanlal Choudhary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Print Page

Whether burden of proof is on tenant to prove that withholding of essential services 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) that 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  Vs. Mohamedbhai Abdothussen Sadiq Bahreinwalla and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

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

Citation: 1981 MHLJ 413,AIR 1982 Bom50, 1981 BomCR 163

Print Page

Whether tenants can claim water supply from landlord if they fails to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.
Citation: 1982(1) BomCR 284:1982(2) RCJ573:1982(2) RCR 353

Print Page

Whether person in possession of premises can be denied electric and water supply if his suit for tenancy declaration is pending?

If the Petitioners are in physical possession of the suit premises, which fact is accepted even before me by the learned Advocate for the Respondent during the course of the argument, then one fails to understand as to why they should be deprived of electricity and water supply which is absolutely bare necessity and essential for even the basic day-to-day life in the modern world. This aspect is completely overlooked by the learned Judges of the Appellate Court. Merely because the documents which were relied upon by the Plaintiffs at the time of hearing of the interim application were not sufficient to establish a plea of tenancy, the Appellate Court could not have overlooked the fact that the suit is yet to be tried and the evidence is yet to be led. At the prima facie stage, the material available on the record was sufficient to infer at least one thing that the Plaintiffs were in exclusive physical possession of the suit premises and also that the said possession of the Petitioners is not a forcible possession and even the Defendant has not raised a plea that just prior to the filing of the suit, the Plaintiffs have forcibly entered the suit premises. This being the state of affairs, in my opinion, learned Judges of the Appellate Court have committed a manifest error in interfering with the Judgment of the Trial Court. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 7315 of 2011

Decided On: 18.10.2011

 Hansa Bhaskar Dave Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Citation: 2012(1) MHLJ730,2012(5) BonCR348,2012(1) AllMR 4

Print Page

Whether landlord is justified to discontinue water supply to tenants if they fail to pay water charges?

Now, in order that a landlord should be held guilty under Section 24 of the Rent Act, it must be shown that the landlord has by his act or omission withheld the essential supply. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was a dispute between the petitioner-landlord and the tenants in regard to the water supply charges, and pending this dispute from 1974, the water charges were in arrears to the tune of about Rs. 32,552.75. It was for this reason that the Bombay Municipal Corporation cut off the water supply on 7-3-1977. The petitioner-landlord in the present case was demanding water charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month were fixed in the standard rent proceedings. Shri Rajani has contended that it was impossible for the petitioner-landlord to pay Rs. 32,000/- as the tenants were in arrears for payment of the said amount to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner-landlord has omitted to pay water charges to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There is considerable force in the argument advanced by Shri Rajani. If by non-payment of the water charges the landlord is put to helpless position, it cannot be said that the landlord has committed any act or omitted to do any act by which any essential supply has been discontinued.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appln. No. 185 of 1979

Decided On: 30.06.1980

 Cajubhai Balabhai Pradhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.J. Rele, J.

Citation: 1982(1)BomCR284; 1981CriLJ209

Print Page

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