Whether occupier of dilapidated building are necessary party to suit challenging notice issued by Municipal corporation for demolition?

A perusal of section 354 however indicates that the said provision can be pressed in service when the structure occupied by the occupier or the owner of the building is in a dilapidated or ruinous condition. In this case, the notice was issued in respect of the entire building and not any particular tenement. Some of the other occupants who were not impleaded as a party defendants to the suit, therefore rightly applied for their impleadment before the learned trial judge on the ground that if any order is passed by the City Civil Court in the said suit impugning the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under section 354 of the Act, they would be seriously affected. 

12. In my view, the other occupants who are also issued similar notices under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act may be seriously affected if any order is passed by the City Civil Court in respect of such notice under section 354 which was admittedly issued in respect of the entire building and not a particular structure occupied by the plaintiffs alone. Any order that may be passed by the City Civil Court thus would obviously affect all the occupants and not the plaintiffs alone. In my view the presence of all the occupants thus would be absolutely necessary for the purpose for determining the controversy involved in the said suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition Nos. 5699, 6582, 6583 and 6584 of 2018

Decided On: 22.10.2018

 Mahesh D. Jobanputra  Vs.  Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 458

Print Page

Whether occupant of premises will become tenant if he was not licensee?

 Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact sought to urge that as a result of the judgment of the City Civil Court, the petitioners have been deprived of establishing that their status as licensees fructified into a tenancy with effect from 1 February 1973. Quite apart from the fact that such a plea would not be open to the petitioners in the background of what has been observed earlier, we find even on merits that the submission requires only be stated to be rejected. We have extracted in the earlier part of this judgment the specific finding of the Trial Court based on the admissions of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners that the premises were granted to them on the basis of a conducting agreement. Besides this, in the earlier proceeding that was instituted in the Small Causes Court, it was found that the premises have been granted under a conducting agreement and there was no relationship of licensor and licensee. That being the position, the petitioners would not acquire status as tenants with effect from 1 February 1973, there being no licence in their favour.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik And Anr vs Pradnya Prakash Khadekar And Ors on 1 March, 2017

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Citation:(2017) 5 SCC 496

Print Page

Whether payment of electricity bills by occupant can create status of tenancy or licensee ?

The first
Appellate Judge had no justification at all to overturn or reverse the
Judgement and decree passed by the trial Court as merely
payment of electricity bills by the occupant cannot create status of
tenancy or licensee protected under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.395 OF 2002
Vinayak s/o. Daulat Watkar V Jeevan s/o. Ganpat Puri


CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 27th January, 2014.
Citation;2014(4) MHLJ 280 Bom

Print Page

What are right of occupant of land under Bombay Regulation Act?

Apart from these defects in the procedure preceding the order passed by the District Judge, I find that the District Judge who passed the impugned order as well as both the Courts in this case have ignored the proper principles of Hindu Law applicable to the case. Waman Raghunath being a Hindu dying without any known heirs or presumed to be dead without leaving any known heirs, defendant No. 1, the State of Maharashtra, would undoubtedly take his properties by escheat under the rules of the Hindu Law as they existed prior to the Hindu Succession Act if he died before June 17, 1956. If he died thereafter, the Government would take the property under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act which is as under :-- 29: "If an intestate has left no heir, heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government, and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have become subject".

The heirs would in the present case take subject to the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 whatever be the date of death of Waman because the plaintiffs are now held to be in possession of the said lands continuously as tenants of the said lands. These aspects are not at all considered by the District Judge when ordering the administrator to take possession of the said lands. The right of the Government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act or under the general law prior to the Hindu Succession Act is not higher than that of an heir who can inherit the estate, sub-

ject to the liabilities and obligations of the heirs.

Bombay High Court

Kacharu Baban Kothawale And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 11 February, 1969

Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 Bom 205, (1969) 71 BOMLR 663, ILR 1970 Bom 374

Bench: Vaidya

Print Page