Can a municipal corporation evict its lessee by issuing a notice granting just three days to vacate suit shop?

 It must be noted here that the notice threatened forcible eviction of respondent by granting him just 3 days time to vacate the suit shop, and, therefore, the notice was in clear violation of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, with the agreement between the appellant and the respondent being one of lease and not the licence. The said Act does not confer any special power on the Corporation to forcibly evict the tenants or lessees facing a situation as in the present case, bypassing the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and powers of Civil Court. Therefore, the rejection of its objection by both the Courts below is legal and proper and cannot be interfered with.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

S.B. SHUKRE, J.

Nagpur Municipal Corporation Vs. Bhaurao s/o. Marotrao Mohod (D) thr. Legal Heirs

Second Appeal No.205 of 1993

22nd April, 2014

Citation: 2014(6) ALL MR 537

Print Page

What will be the effect of leave and licence agreement between landlord and deemed tenant?

Section 15A itself has a non-obstante clause, which, as I have noted above, operates notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any inter parties agreement. In other words, the provision of Section 15A cannot be defeated or overriden by a private contract between the parties. As I have noted above, the non-obstante clause at the beginning of Section 15A makes a vital difference and makes its enacting provision incapable of being overridden by a private contract. (This is not a case, where, as a plea of fact, it is claimed that there was a physical surrender of tenancy and creation of a fresh licence post such surrender. What is claimed is that the benefit of Section 15A was waived by the licensee.)

14. The conclusive nature of the facts stated in the agreements of leave and licence (after 1 February 1973) is no answer to the licensee's plea of deemed tenancy either. There is no question here of any facts. The predecessors of Respondent No. 3, no doubt, did purport to create a licence in favour of the Petitioner despite the latter's legally acquired status of a deemed tenant. The question is, whether this licence has the effect of defeating the licensee's legally acquired status of deemed tenancy. That is a question of law. The agreement of licence may be a conclusive proof of the facts stated therein, but the law cannot be decided by the parties through their statements. That is not a matter of volition or individual contract.

16. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that in view of the deemed tenancy of the Petitioner herein, the suit premises are exempted from the application of the Act and as a result, the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain any application under Section 24 of the Act in respect of the premises. The impugned orders of the Competent Authority and the Additional Commissioner, thus, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

 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.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0573/2020, 2020(5) MHLJ 585

Print Page