Whether doctrine of res judicata is applicable if suit is filed under new rent Act?

 Therefore, even after dismissal of earlier proceeding if a new act is promulgated, the beneficiary under the statute can always ring the bell of the Court under permissible grounds seeking eviction.

20. In facts of the case therefore, the principles of res-judicata is completely foreign. The res judicata only operates in respect of the issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title and has been decided. In the instant case on the earlier occasion, the ejectment case was dismissed for the reason that the daughter-in-law cannot be said to be a dependent, but in the subsequent proceeding before the Rent Controller, the facts were otherwise and the parties were also different and it was under the new statute, therefore, the finding of res judicata by the rent controlling authority is completely perverse and wrong appreciation of facts.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

WP (227) No. 2 of 2018

Decided On: 09.08.2018

Utsav Dey Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhadraja and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 188

Print Page

Whether eviction suit filed by unregistered partnership firm is maintainable?

Contention was raised that the suit was not maintainable since the same was filed by an unregistered firm. Repelling the contention court took the view that a suit for eviction is maintainable by an unregistered firm as such a suit is not a suit to enforce an agreement but a right therefor accrues to a landlord by reason of the provisions of the statute namely Rent Act. We are in agreement with the Patna High Court that the right of a landlord to determine a tenancy. arises under a statute, namely, Transfer of Property Act and later by Rent. Act. The Bombay High Court in Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. v. Foreign Imports and Exports Association. MANU/MH/0013/1961 : AIR 1961 Bom 65 held that the right to make an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators is a statutory right and not arising from a contract, though it is not conferred in connection with a contract. Landlord is not enforcing his right arising from a contract, but seeking eviction on the basis of the provisions of the Rent Act which is a statutory right, therefore section 69(2) would not be a bar if a petition is filed by the unregistered firm as a landlord. The petition filed by an unregistered firm for eviction is therefore maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

CRP. No. 606 of 1997 (D)

Decided On: 18.03.2004

 Dungarsi Ranchhodas  Vs.  Moolji Visanji

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pius C. Kuriakose, JJ.

Print Page

Whether share holder of company can be treated as co-owner of property for the purpose of rent Act?

Similarly, it is the contention of the revision petitioner that the building in Triplicane, referred in the petition also belongs to the respondent. But it is the specific case of the respondent that the property is the company's property and he is only a minor share holder in the property. Further, it is also the contention of the respondent that a suit has also been filed for declaration for allotting shares in favour of the plaintiff by the other directors. Ex. P.7 plaint makes it clear that infact the suit is filed by the sister of the respondent for various reliefs and also for declaration with regard to the shares transferred in the name of the respondent herein. Once, the property is said to be company's property, the share holders cannot be the owner of the property. They can never be considered as a co-owner of the property. Only the company is the owner of the property. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent is the co-owner of the property cannot be countenanced.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.R.P. (NPD) Nos. 204, 205 of 2013, M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 and 1 of 2014

Decided On: 26.02.2019

 Hateemy Sales Corporation  Vs. R. Sudhakar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR (Rent) 475

Print Page

Supreme Court: While considering right of succession of married daughter over leased property provisions of rent Act are not relevant

 From the impugned orders passed by the inventory court and the High Court, it is not in dispute that both the courts below have held against the Appellants, more particularly Appellant No. 1 - married daughter, mainly relying upon and considering Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act, which, as observed hereinabove, ought not to have been considered and has no relevance while considering the right of succession of a married daughter in the "lease premises" under the provisions of the erstwhile Portuguese Civil Code and subsequently on enactment of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. The sum and substance of the above discussion would be that a married daughter would have a right of succession in the "lease premises" also.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2961 of 2019 

Decided On: 13.03.2019

 Uma Mahesh Bandekar Vs.   Vivek Sadanand Marathe 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 401

Print Page

Supreme Court: While considering right of succession over lease property provisions of rent Act are not to be considered

We are of the opinion that both, the learned Inventory Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in relying upon the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, while considering the right of succession of a married daughter in the "lease premises" vis a vis and/or under the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012.

9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the proceedings before the inventory court as well as the High Court were under the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012/Portuguese Civil Code, which shall be continued on enactment of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, as if those proceedings were/are initiated under the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 (in view of Section 460 of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012). It is required to be noted that the proceedings before the inventory court and the High Court were not at all with respect to Goa Rent Act. The proceedings were not between the landlord and the tenant. The provisions of Goa Rent Act shall be applicable with respect to dispute between the landlord and the tenant. As per the preamble of the Goa Rent Act, it has been enacted for control of rents and evictions. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the dispute was neither under the provisions of the Goa Rent Act nor between the landlord and the tenant and therefore both, the inventory court as well as the High Court have erred in considering the provisions of the Goa Rent Act, more particularly Section 2(o) of the Goa Rent Act. The only question which was before the inventory court and the High Court was in respect of the rights of succession of a married daughter in the "lease premises" under the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and subsequently under the provisions of the Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012. Therefore, what is required to be considered is whether under the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and on enactment of Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012, whether the married daughter would have a right of succession in the "lease premises" or not?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2961 of 2019 

Decided On: 13.03.2019

Uma Mahesh Bandekar  Vs.  Vivek Sadanand Marathe

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: 2019(1) RCR(Rent) 401

Print Page

Whether court should order eviction of tenant on ground of compromise if ground for eviction is not made out?

The common thread that runs through the aforesaid pronouncements
of this Court is – in cases where protection under a Rent Act is available, no
eviction can be ordered unless ground seeking eviction is made out, even if
parties had entered into a compromise. Moreover, the invalidity on that
count can even be raised in execution. In the present case, the order dated
28.03.2014 did not remotely note that any particular ground under the Rent
Act was made out.
15. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the order passed by the
appellate court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference on part of the High Court.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 8256-8257 OF 2018

M/s Alagu Pharmacy & Ors. V N. Magudeswari 

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Dated:August 14, 2018.
Citation:(2018)8 SCC 311,AIR 2018 SC 3821

Print Page

Whether tenant is entitled to get benefit of Rent Act if he fails to comply strictly provisions of Rent Act?

 It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the views that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he tails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6742 of 2003

Decided On: 30.08.2005

Atma Ram Vs.  Shakuntala Rani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and Arun Kumar, JJ.

Citation: (2005) 7 SCC 211

Print Page

Whether purchaser of property can remain in possession of joint family house if it is used for commercial purpose?

It is not disputed that the suit house was given on rent to Sheikhar Chand Jain in the year 1968. In first round of litigation a Civil Suit No. 147-A/1998, it is found proved that the suit house was let out for business purposes, where defendants were running an electrical shop. It is also found proved that this house is required for legal profession of plaintiff Hafizulla under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In subsequent Civil Suit No. 11-A/2002 and RCA case No. 2-A/90(7)97-98, it is pleaded by plaintiff that suit house was let out for business purposes and it is bonafidely required for business/office of advocate. In the present suit plaintiff Hafizulla (PW-1) and his son M. Shafiqulla (PW-2) in evidence have not stated that the suit house is a dwelling house, used for residential purposes. Thus, from pleading and evidence of the parties, it is established that the suit house is being used for business purposes since, 1968 and still the plaintiff wants to use it for his profession of Advocacy. The house is not being used for residential purpose since more than 45 years and in future the plaintiff is not intending to use it as residence. It was completely let out to tenant and considering the long period of tenancy, it cannot be said that it had been given on rent temporarily. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disputed house is a dwelling house within the meaning of Section 4 of Partition Act and Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the provisions of above acts are not applicable in respect of disputed house. Therefore, the case law relied upon by plaintiff are not applicable in facts of present case because mainly they relates to dwelling house.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1194/2011

Decided On: 01.02.2017

 Hafizulla and Ors. Vs. Puran Chand Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajendra Menon, Actg. C.J. and Anurag Shrivastava, J.

Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 1086 MP

Print Page

Whether tenant has right to file repeated applications without a substantial cause?

No doubt that the tenant has a right to file applications but has no right to file frivolous applications. The Code of Civil Procedure except to the very limited extent set out in the Act of 2001, does not attract to proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. Only principles of natural Justice have to be complied with by the Rent Tribunal/Appellate Rent Tribunal. There is thus no conceivable reason as to why repeated applications without a substantial cause should be filed before the Rent Tribunal to defeat the object and purpose of the Act of 2001.

4. Adrian Zuckerman in his book Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles and Practice, 3 rd Edition, 2013 states that the object of adjudication is public services to enforce rights and reach the correct decisions within constraints of time and costs. (emphasis mine). Like, no person can be entitled to the best possible medical service regardless of costs, no one can be similarly entitled to best possible adjudicatory outcome without regard to the time and costs. It has been further stated that when delays in adjudication occur they entail time and expenses for the courts and consequently, the public. The opposing party and other litigants whose time before the court is resultantly reduced are the suffering party. In the aforesaid legal philosophy relating to adjudicatory mechanism of the courts with which I fully affirm, repeated miscellaneous applications in the course of trials more particularly in the course of summary trials such as under the Rent Control Act, 2001 are an unacceptable obstruction to the public service of adjudication.
In the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur

(Before Alok Sharma, J.)

 Smt. Kamla Devi Bohrav. Bhagvan Das Bhatia, 

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2017

Decided on October 3, 2017

2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2570

Print Page

Whether directory provisions of Rent Act can be reduced to a dead letter?

The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter “the Act of 2001”) was intended to expedite the adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes. Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001 even though directory in nature requires that the eviction petition be disposed of within 240 days of the service on the opposite party. But even the directory provisions of Act of 2001 cannot be reduced to a dead letter and eviction petitions allowed to remain pending for years, as in the instant case.

In the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur

(Before Alok Sharma, J.)

 Smt. Kamla Devi Bohrav. Bhagvan Das Bhatia, 

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2017

Decided on October 3, 2017

2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2570

Print Page

What is basic concept of suitable accommodation in rent Act?

It is necessary to bear in mind that the Legislature in enacting Section 13(1)(1) of the Act did not say that as soon as the tenant gets some residence equal or larger in area than the former residence under the landlord, the tenant should be evicted. The emphasis of the Legislature is on the word "suitable". Therefore, in every case it will have to be seen, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the tenant can be said to have acquired or allotted suitable alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the accommodation suitable for the tenant's residence would ordinarily mean that if a person is required to reside in a particular place in connection with his allocation or profession or business, the alternative accommodation must be suitable for his residence there and not at the place which is located far away. For instance, if tenant in Mumbai acquires premises say in Nagpur or Wardha, it will not ipso facto amount to acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation. If it is further demonstrated that the tenant has shifted to his alternative accommodation with his family then and in that case provisions of Section 13(1)(1) of the Act will be certainly attracted. However, ultimately, the question will have to be decided having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5305 of 1989

Decided On: 16.07.2004

J. Marathe Vs.P.V. Kaloke

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.P. Shah, Actg. C.J. and S.U. Kamdar, J.

Citation: 2004(4) MHLJ287

Print Page

How to ascertain existence of partnership for purpose of Rent Act?

In the light of the above finding, if one turns to law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Shama Prasad Raje v.
Ganpatrao, AIR 2000 SCW 3493, it is obligatory on the part of the
landlord to prove that the tenant has parted with possession of the
tenanted premises and such parting of possession must be backed
by for some consideration. In the instant case, it has been proved
that the possession is with defendant No. 2. The admission given
by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 is his partner in the
business run under the name and style of respondent No. 3, itself
goes a long way to establish the case pleaded by the plaintiffs.
Assuming that there was partnership between defendant Nos. 1
and 2 brought into existence of on 23 September, 1976 the terms
and conditions thereof cannot be read for want of proof of
document. Assuming that the contents thereof can be read in
evidence, even then as already found, no genuine partnership
could be said to have been established. It was brought into
existence only to defeat the provisions of rent legislation. This
Court in case of Gangaram v. Ashok Kumar, 1969 Mh.L.J. Note
43 has held as under :
".....that the question whether relationship between the
petitioners amount to a partnership or not could not be
decided merely on the basis of a deed which they had
filed and the Court is entitled to examine all the incidents
of the relationship between the parties as shown by the
written agreement together with the surrounded
circumstances at the time when the contract was entered
into, conduct of the parties as well as other facts that
may be relevant, such for instance, as the right to control
the property, the manner in which the accounts of the
business are kept, the right to receive profits and the
liability to share the losses and from these deduce the
real intention of the parties. Existence of any written or
verbal agreement, between the parties, conduct of the
parties towards one another, the mode in which they
have dealt with one another, the mode in which each has
with the knowledge of the other dealt with other people,
are all Indicia which may help the Court in finding
whether partnership does or does not exist. The Court
must consider all the facts and circumstances of the
cases and draw an inference from them as a whole
without attributing undue weight to any one of them. It
will have to be found in each case whether a plea of
partnership which is put forth as a defence to an
application by the landlord under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the
Rent Control Order is intended to be a mere cloak to
cover up the use of the premises by a person other than
the tenant or whether the tenant is himself carrying on
the partnership business. Thus, the failure to produce
account books, the conduct of the tenant in not taking
part in the business which was carried on only in the
name of the stranger and the earlier conduct in subletting
the premises for a period of 5 years to another person
indicated that the document of partnership was merely a
cloak brought into being in order to defeat the
application of the landlord under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the
Rent Control Order. (Order of the Rent Control
authorities holding that the tenant had sublet the
premises upheld)."
29. Applying the tests laid down by this Court to the facts of the
present case, it has to be held that defendant No.1 has failed to establish
legal and genuine partnership between defendants No.1 and 2. Perusal
of questions and answers during the course of cross-examination of
D.W.1 as referred in paragraph 8 above also substantiates the case of
unlawful subletting by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based upon
appreciation of evidence on record. In the present case, the premises
and its availability for running business was the prime and basic
consideration for inducting defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1.

Partnership Deed has not been registered under the Partnership Act.
Perusal of the answer given by D.W.1 to question No.121 shows that
partners of defendant No.1 have no experience in the business of
Agarwood and perfumes. The Courts below have carefully scrutinized
the evidence in the light of law. In view thereof, I do not find that any
case is made out for invocation of powers under Section 115 of C.P.C.
Defendant No.1 was not in a position to demonstrate that the findings
recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based upon no
evidence or that they are contrary to the evidence on record. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2016
H. Vasanji & Company through Partner
Chirag Dinkar Thaker 
Vs.
Chandrakumari Harnamsingh Chowhan 

 CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

Pronounced on: OCTOBER 13, 2016

Print Page

Whether landlord can apply for release under rent Act through power of attorney?

In the instant case, it is the owner who has applied for release under Section 21 of the Rent Act through power of attorney. The application through power of attorney is as if it is by the principal. The power of attorney has not set up his own need and has not filed the release application in his own name. Therefore, the submission that the release application is not maintainable as it has been filed through the power of attorney holder has no force.
The power of attorney holder acts on behalf of the principal and not for any of his personal rights. There is no express prohibition under the Rent Act debarring the owner-landlord from applying for release through power of attorney holder. 
The submission that the release application is not signed and verified by the owner and landlady as contemplated by Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Rent Act is also without substance. 
Rule 15 of the Rules provides that the application for release must be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Rule 14 of Order VI C.P.C. states that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. Under the proviso it lays down that if a party is not available it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. It by necessary implication means that ordinarily pleadings/release application are required to be signed by the party concerned but in his absence a person duly authorised to sign on his behalf may also sign it which definitely includes the power of attorney. 
Thus, there is no bar for the power of attorney holder to sign and verify the pleadings as contemplated by Rule 14 Order VI C.P.C. referred to in Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Rent Act. 
The release application in the case at hand as stated earlier, has been filed in the name of the owner-landlady through the power of attorney holder. It has been signed and verified by the power of attorney holder on behalf of the owner-landlady. The owner-landlady by her own affidavit (paper No.74A-2) has accepted that the release application has been filed on her behalf through the power of attorney holder and that she reiterates and verifies the contents of the release application. 
In view of the above, there is no illegality in signing and verifying the release application by the power of attorney holder. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 WRIT - A No. - 1974 of 2015 

Smt. Rashmi Bhatiya And Another. 
 Smt. Geeta Sharma And Another. 
Citation: 2016 SCCONLINEALL617,
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. 

Print Page

How to determine rateable value of of property for levy of property taxes?

 In Dr.Balbir Singh & ors. v/s. M/s.M.C.D. & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 339, it was held that the ratable value of a building, whether tenanted or self occupied, is limited by the measure of standard rent arrived at by the assessing authority by applying principles laid down in the Rent Act. It has also been held that the test for determining the standard rent is not what the standard rent actually is but the rent which the owner reasonably expects to receive from an hypothetical tenant. Such expectation cannot go beyond the standard rent.

Bombay High Court

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal ... vs Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... on 11 August, 2009

Bench: Nishita Mhatre

Citation:2009(5) ALLMR 529:2009(5)MHLJ647 Bom

Read full judgment here:click here

Print Page

Executability of compromise decree passed on the basis of compromise as per Rent Act

 Unless one of the grounds available under Section 16 is taken up, pleaded or shown to the Court at the time of compromise and unless it is mentioned in the compromise, the decree based on such compromise will not be executable. Landlord and tenant may enter into compromise, where tenant is ready to vacate the premises. Court is satisfied about it as the parties before the Court mutually agree, though any ground for eviction or vacating the rented premises, which is available under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not mentioned in the compromise, the compromise can be materialised if the tenant vacates the premises voluntarily. However, the obstacle in the execution will arise if premises is not vacated.

22. Thus, while submitting the terms of the compromise, it is mandatory that at least one of the grounds for eviction which is available under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act ought to have been mentioned in the compromise purshis or there should be a clear indication of such ground which might have been pleaded either in the plaint by landlord or in the written statement if the landlord is a defendant. Thereafter, it is the duty of the Court while recording the compromise, to satisfy itself that any ground under Section 16 ought to have been 

mentioned in the compromise and then accept it.

Bombay High Court

Abedali Khan S/O Rahematali Khan vs Devidas S/O Dhonduji Poghe on 28 September, 2011

Bench: Mridula Bhatkar

Print Page