When father can not file rent control proceeding on behalf of daughter?

Considering both side cases, the learned Rent Controller namely XIth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, by order dated 23.01.2009 dismissed the RCOP. No. 1539 of 2007 and the learned Judge states that as per Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Proceedings Act, the petitioner/landlord has not having any rights or locus-standi to file the Rent Control Petition. The Learned Judge has also further states that as per the evidence of the petitioner/landlord it made clear that the petitioner/landlord himself has admitted in his evidence that he had settled the petition mentioned property in favour of his daughters and also stated that in his cross examination that he has filed the petition in RCOP. No. 1539 of 2007 in the capacity of Power Agent of his daughter. On verification by the correctness of the said evidence, the learned Rent Controller have verified the documents which was marked by the petitioner as Ex. P2 the General Power of Attorney, which was executed in respect of petition premises, it empowers the petitioner/landlord only to negotiate sale consideration and to deal with the said property to sell that same. But the said power of Attorney Ex. P2 does not gave any right to fix-up the tenant and to collect rent or to maintain the property.

Order 3 Rule 1 of CPC prescribe the recognition of the power agent and provision states as follows:

"1. Appearances, ect, may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader:- Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court may, except where otherwise express provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader (appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be,) on his behalf:

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person."

23. Admittedly, in this case, this petitioner has not obtained any permission from the Court for filing the Rent Control Proceedings as Power Agent of the original owner against the tenant. Therefore, there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

CRP (NPD) Nos. 3940, 3941 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012

Decided On: 23.10.2017

R. Baskaran Vs. M.K. Thangavelu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Citation:2017(2) RCR(Rent)597

Print Page

Whether it is permissible for court to direct partial eviction of tenant?

 The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on one reported cases like MANU/SC/0362/1977 : AIR 1978 SC 413 [Rahman Jeo Wangnoo V/s Ram Chand and others]. In this case, the Apex Court has laid down that it is the duty of the Court to see whether partial eviction as contemplated under the provisions of Rent Control Act is possible and if there is such possibility the Court should direct partial eviction. Another case reported as MANU/SC/0022/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 2713 [Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada V/s Govindram Ramgopal Mundada] was cited in which it is laid down that the burden is on landlord to prove that he bonafidely requires the premises though the burden of proving that greater hardship will be caused to tenant lies on the tenant. In that case also, there was possibility of partial eviction and for consideration that possibility the matter was remanded by the Apex Court. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition made by the Apex Court. Another case relied is from Bombay Law Reporter, reported as MANU/MH/0262/1976 : 1976 (A.C.J.) 455 [Bhaskar Digambar Choudhary V/s Bhagwan Vishwanath Fadnis]. While deciding Writ Petition, this Court discussed the provision regarding partial eviction and it is observed that it is the duty of the Court to consider said issue and satisfy itself that no hardship will be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing a decree in respect of part of premises only. Reliance was place on the case reported as MANU/MH/0201/2001 : 2001 (3) Bom.C.R. 400 [Hotel Rosalia P. Ltd. V/s Metro Hotels & Others], Bombay High Court. On facts, it was held that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine, bonafide

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 14 of 2014

Decided On: 02.12.2015

Mohanlal Bhikchand Rathi

Vs.

Ashok Trimbak Joshi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2016 Bom Rent Cases 98

Print Page

When civil court will have jurisdiction to try rent case?

i) Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the
suit and, therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing of the suit will
continue to apply until suit is disposed of or adjudicated.
ii) If during the pendency of the suit, Rent Act becomes applicable to the
premises in question, that would be of no consequence and it would not
take away the jurisdiction of civil court to dispose of a suit validly
instituted.
iii) In order to oust the jurisdiction of civil court, there must be a specific
provision in the Act taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court in
respect of those cases also which were validly instituted before the date
when protection of Rent Act became available in respect of the said
area/premises/tenancy.
iv) In case aforesaid position is not accepted and the protection of the Rent
Act is extended even in respect of suit validly instituted prior in point of
time when there was no such protection under the Act, it will have the
consequence of making the decree, that is obtained prior to the Rent Act
becoming applicable to the said area/premises, inexecutable after the
application of these Rent Act in respect of such premises. This would
not be in consonance with the legislative intent.
17) In laying down the aforesaid dicta, the Court also took support of two
well known maxims viz. (i) ubi jus ibi remedium which lays down the
principle that where there is a right there is a remedy and it can be
excluded only by substantial legislation expressly extinguishing the said
right AND (ii) actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that nobody
should be allowed to suffer because of the act of the Court. Here the act
attributed is delay in disposal of the case. Additionally, the Court took aid
of purposive interpretation i.e. legislative intent in not making Rent Act
applicable to new constructions for a period of ten years. 
18) What we notice is that in the impugned judgment, the High Court has
divided the cases into two categories and restricted the law laid down in
the aforesaid judgments only in respect of those category of cases
where Rent Act exempts from its applicability newly constructed
properties for a period of ten years. Second category of cases carved
out covers those cases where the Rent Act was not applicable when the
suit was filed but extended to the area/premises in question during the
pendency of the suit. In respect of later category the High Court held
that the dicta in the aforesaid judgments would not be applicable and the
moment Rent Act is extended to such areas where the premises are
situate, civil court shall cease to have jurisdiction to continue with the
suits though instituted even at a point of time when Rent Act was not
applicable. This distinction, according to us, is illusory. The principles of
law laid down in the aforesaid judgment as culled out above would apply
in equal force to second category of cases as well inasmuch as the basic
principle which is laid down in the aforesaid judgments is that rights of
the parties get crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and
the law applicable on the date of filing the suit would continue to govern
such suit.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8194 OF 2016
RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. 
V
BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
Dated:OCTOBER 18, 2016.
Citation: (2017) 4 SCC 202

Print Page

Whether court can refuse permission to examine witness to prove disputed fact?

The Rent Control Court said that it was not

 satisfied of the competence of the proposed

 witness to prove the disputed fact. That was

 one       reason  why   the   Rent  Control   Court

 dismissed the applications. The sub-tenants

 wanted to examine the witness to prove that

 the      signatures   in  the   disputed   receipts

 belonged to PW1. The sub-tenants chose a

 tenant of the same building to prove the

 disputed signatures. He was chosen perhaps

 he might have received rent receipts signed

 by PW1. The competence of a witness to prove

 a fact is normally a matter to be decided

 after reading his evidence and not before

 his       examination unless his incompetence is

 so patent.



10.Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act reads

 thus:-



          "If a document is alleged to be signed
          or to have been written wholly or in
          part by a person, the signature or the
          handwriting of so much of the document


          as is alleged to be in that person's
          handwriting must be proved to be in his
          handwriting".




 In view of Section 67 it is obligatory for

 the       sub-tenants    to   prove   the   disputed

 signatures to be the signatures of PW1. They

 only sought an opportunity to prove the

 disputed signatures. Section 67 which deals

 with proof of signature and handwriting does

 not state the manner in which it should be

 proved. It may be proved by any kind of

 evidence. The signature of a person may be

 proved by another person who is acquainted

 with       the  signature   of   the  former.   That

 precisely was what the sub-tenants wanted to

 attempt.       They    should    be   afforded   the

 opportunity. The competence of the witness

 to prove the disputed signatures may be

 assessed after his evidence is recorded. Let

 not it be decided before he goes to the

 witness box.        The evidence need not be shut

 out. We are unable to accept the first


 reason given by the Rent Control Court to

 dismiss Exts P3 to P5 applications.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                 PRESENT:

                              MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
                                                      &
                                MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

            14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

                                     OP (RC).No. 133 of 2016 (O)
                                      

      PUSHPA JAYAN
              Vs

                    NADEERA AHAMMED
                  

Print Page

When Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 will prevail over Rent Control Act?

Further, in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. &
Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors  

(1990) 4 SCC 406, wherein the

question for consideration was whether the provisions
of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the provisions of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Constitution Bench
of this Court after interpretation of the relevant
provisions of both the Acts has clearly held that the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 must prevail over the Rent Control Act. The
relevant paras 55 and 70 of the decision read thus:
“55. The Rent Control Act makes a
departure from the general law
regulating the relationship of landlord
and tenant contained in the Transfer of
Property Act inasmuch as it makes
provision for determination of standard
rent, it specifies the grounds on which
a landlord can seek the eviction of a
tenant, it prescribes the forum for
adjudication of disputes between
landlords and tenants and the procedure
which has to be followed in such
proceedings. The Rent Control Act can,
therefore, be said to be a special
statute regulating the relationship of
landlord and tenant in the Union
territory of Delhi. The Public Premises
Act makes provision for a speedy
machinery to secure eviction of
unauthorised occupants from public
premises. As opposed to the general law

which provides for filing of a regular
suit for recovery of possession of
property in a competent court and for
trial of such a suit in accordance with
the procedure laid down in the Code of
Civil Procedure, the Public Premises
Act confers the power to pass an order
of eviction of an unauthorised occupant
in a public premises on a designated
officer and prescribes the procedure to
be followed by the said officer before
passing such an order. Therefore, the
Public Premises Act is also a special
statute relating to eviction of
unauthorised occupants from public
premises. In other words, both the
enactments, namely, the Rent Control
Act and the Public Premises Act, are
special statutes in relation to the
matters dealt with therein. Since, the
Public Premises Act is a special
statute and not a general enactment the
exception contained in the principle
that a subsequent general law cannot
derogate from an earlier special law
cannot be invoked and in accordance
with the principle that the later laws
abrogate earlier contrary laws, the
Public Premises Act must prevail over
the Rent Control Act.
70……In our opinion, the provisions of
the Public Premises Act, to the extent
they cover premises falling within the
ambit of the Rent Control Act, override
the provisions of the Rent Control Act
and a person in unauthorised occupation
of public premises under Section 2(e)
of the Act cannot invoke the protection

of the Rent Control Act.”

CA @ SLP(C) No. 6978 of 2012 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3783 OF 2016
 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.6978 of 2012)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ………… APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PVT. LTD. ………… RESPONDENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
 Dated:12th April, 2016

Print Page

Whether ‘SARFAESI Act'will override provisions of Rent Control Act?

 In view of the above legal position, if we accept
the legal submissions made on behalf of the Banks to
hold that the provisions of SARFAESI Act override the
provisions of the various Rent Control Acts to allow a
Bank to evict a tenant from the tenanted premise, which
has become a secured asset of the Bank after the
default on loan by the landlord and dispense with the
procedure laid down under the provisions of the various
Rent Control Acts and the law laid down by this Court
in catena of cases, then the legislative powers of the
state legislatures are denuded which would amount to
subverting the law enacted by the State Legislature.
Surely, such a situation was not contemplated by the
Parliament while enacting the SARFAESI Act and
therefore the interpretation sought to be made by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Banks cannot
be accepted by this Court as the same is wholly
untenable in law.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8060 of 2015)
VISHAL N. KALSARIA 
Vs.
BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
Dated;January 20,2016
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC 762,2016 ALLMR(CRI)1322 SC,2016 Bom Rent Cases 76

Print Page

Compliance to be made by tenant for seeking benefit of rent control law

Tenancy - Protection against eviction - Benefit thereof - Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 - High Court, while upholding Small Causes Court's orders, rejected application for review of order passed under Section 7(2) of Act - Hence, present appeal - Whether Tenant-Respondent was entitled to benefit of protection against eviction by paying arrears of rent - Held, Court instead of directing tenant to deposit rent with Civil Judge, permitted tenant to deposit rent as prayed for in petition - Tenant deposited rent within time as required under Section 7(1) of Act, but said deposit was made with Rent Controller - Rent Control Acts are enacted to protect tenants from illegal eviction without obtaining decree or order from competent Court - Benefits conferred on tenants through those Rent Control Acts can be enjoyed only after strict compliance with statutory provisions - Deposit of such rent by tenant with Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge as per amendments was either deliberate or bonafide mistake - This might be reason, present Court observed that tenant might satisfy Court that such deposit was bonafide - Present Court gave liberty to tenant to satisfy that such deposit with Rent Controller instead of Civil Judge was bonafide - Impugned order was thus fully justified - Appeal dismissed. [20],[28],[29] and[30]
Equivalent Citation: 2015(1)RCR(Rent)583, 2015(5)SCALE436,AIR 2015 SC 2855,(2015)8 SCC640

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3786 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20281 of 2014)

Decided On: 21.04.2015

Monoj Lal Seal and Ors.Vs.  Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:M. Yusuf Eqbal and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Print Page

Tenancy Rights’ and action under SARFAESI Act, 2002

Banks used to take advantage of the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 earlier in taking possession of the ‘secured asset’ even when the tenant was in possession of the property. Absolutely, there is no difficulty in taking the possession of the ‘secured asset’ using the protection and assistance under Section 14 of the Act if the property was actually in possession of the borrower or the guarantor. Courts were looking into the issue of rights of tenants and the bona fides as the owner of the property can play with the Bank with fictitious arrangements.  Any person aggrieved, including a Tenant, can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Act. When a tenant approaches the Court or the Tribunal seeking protection of his rights and questioning the action being taken by the Bank using Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Court or the Tribunal used to look into or emphasize as to:

(a). Whether there are bona fides in the contention of the tenant?

(b). If Tenant relies on any agreement with the landlord, the date of the agreement or the date from when the Tenant was in possession of the property.

(c). The knowledge of the Bank in respect of tenancy while sanctioning the loan.

(c). Whether the agreement between the tenant or the landlord registered and legal?

Print Page