Thus, after demise of original tenant, first question from the averments in the plaint arises as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act after death of Mathuraprasad Yadav (original tenant) when according to plaint itself, Mathuraprasad Yadav left legal heirs as mentioned in gynecology in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the question arose as to who derived tenancy as under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, legal heirs must agree as to who shall inherit tenancy from the original tenant as "tenant" within the meaning of the Act would be liable to tender rent to the landlord. In default of agreement between the legal heirs, the question can be decided by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
12. The averments in the present case also indicate that the plaintiff was claiming as one of the co-tenants. In other words, the question as to who is tenant, is not yet determined by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, the question raised regarding relinquishment of tenancy rights was incidental and consequential relief which is close from the main relief as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. For all these reasons, it must be concluded, that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable as the City Civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy which is required to be exclusively dealt with and decided under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In respect of the suit premises governed by the said Act, there was a clear bar of Section 33 read with Section 7(15) Clause (d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act for City Civil court to entertain the suit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
First Appeal No. 2 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 3849 of 2012 in First Appeal No. 2 of 2013
Decided On: 23.10.2013
M/s. Sanyam Realtors Private Limited Vs. Shyamji Bhagirathi Yadav and Lalchand Purushottam Yadav
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.P. Bhangale, J.
Citation: 2014(1) MHLJ 244,2014(1) AIR Bom R 98,2014(3) ALLMR 889
1. The appellant (original defendant no. 1) challenged validity and legality of the judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, whereby the learned City Civil Judge had framed issue about proof of tenancy in respect of suit premises as also as to who inherited the tenancy rights amongst the heirs of original tenant Mathuraprasad Mittal Yadav. The court held that the instrument (agreement dated 26.10.2005) executed between defendant nos. 1 and 2 is not binding upon the plaintiff. The appellant while challenging the impugned judgment and order made a grievance that learned City Civil Judge did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the real cause of action before the court, which raised question relating to tenancy of the suit premises, as also, as to status of legal heir as tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It does appear that the trial court had framed an issue regarding jurisdiction of City Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. But it was answered in the affirmative and the learned Judge proceeded to deal with the merits of the averments in the plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when an issue relating to jurisdiction of the court is raised, learned Judge ought to have addressed himself to the averments made in the plaint and the question arising out of the pleading in the plaint. According to learned counsel for the appellant, City Civil Court, Mumbai, had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, as the question arising from the pleadings or averments made in the plaint regarding tenancy of the suit premises or relating to the question as to who is tenant after death of original tenant were questions cognizable and triable exclusively by Small Cause Court, Mumbai, and not by City Civil Court.
3. My attention has been invited to the averments made in the plaint in S.C. Suit No. 2849 of 2006. The plaintiff Shyamji Bhagirathi Yadav who is grandson of Mathuraprasad Yadav (original tenant of suit premises) in respect of suit premises described as land and structure in C.T.S. No. 128, at Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai, admeasuring about 9920 sq. feet known as Ramnath Tiwari Tabela Compound, situated near Damodar Park, L.B.S. Road, Ghatkopar (west), Mumbai. According to the plaint, Mathuraprasad Yadav was tenant in respect of above suit premises and landlord was Ramnath Tiwari. Mathuraprasad died in the year 1976 at Village Ahopur in Uttar Pradesh, leaving behind legal heirs as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The dispute raised in the plaint is about the relinquishment of the tenancy rights in respect of suit premises, with consequent mandatory injunction to restrain defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or his family members. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the question raised by the plaintiff was relating to tenancy in respect of suit premises as the plaintiff averred in paragraph 12 and because of non-availability of other heirs of original tenant at Mumbai, the plaintiff did not array them as either co-plaintiff or defendant. In substance, therefore, the plaintiff averred that he is one of the co-tenants in respect of suit premises and sought relief based upon right arising out of tenancy in respect of suit premises seeking declaration that agreement for relinquishing the tenancy right is illegal, null and void, and also sought cancellation thereof. The agreement dated 26.10.2005 was purportedly executed between defendants in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant therefore contended that City Civil Judge could not have decided any such question relating to tenancy of suit premises which is governed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The question in substance to be decided was as to who is tenant after death of original tenant Mathuraprasad Yadav.
4. My attention is invited to ruling in Vasant Pratap Pandit vs. Anant Trimbak Sabnis reported in MANU/SC/0685/1994 : 1994 Mah. L.J. Page 1450. Hon'ble Supreme court while considering Section 15 read with Section 5(11)(c)(i) observed in paragraph 14 of ruling as follows:
From a plain reading of Section 5(11)(c)(i) it is obvious that the legislative prescription is first to give protection to members of the family of the tenant residing with him at the time of his death. The basis for such prescription seems to be that when a tenant is in occupation of premises the tenancy is taken by him not only for his own benefit but also for the benefit of the members of the family residing with him. Therefore, when the tenant dies, protection should be extended to the members of the family who were participants in the benefit of the tenancy and for whose needs as well the tenancy was originally taken by the tenant. It is for this avowed object, the legislature has, irrespective of the fact whether such members are 'heirs' in the strict sense of the term or not, given them the first priority to be treated as tenants. It is only when such members of the family are not there, the 'heirs' will be entitled to be treated as tenants as decided, in default of agreement, by the court. In other words, all the heirs are liable to be excluded if any other member of the family was staying with the tenant at the time of his death. When Section 15, which prohibits sub-letting, assignment or transfer, is read in juxtaposition with Section 5(11)(c)(i) it is patently clear that the legislature intends that in case no member of the family as referred to in the first part of the clause is there the 'heir', who under the ordinary mode of succession would necessarily be a relation of the deceased, should be treated as a tenant of the premises subject, however, to the decision by the court in default of agreement. The words "as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court" as appearing in Section 5(11)(c)(i) are not without significance. These words in our view have been incorporated to meet a situation where there are more than one heirs. In such an eventuality the landlord may or may not agree to one or the other of them being recognized as a 'tenant'. In case of such disagreement the court has to decide who is to be treated as 'tenant'. Therefore, if 'heir' is to include a legatee of the will then the above-quoted words cannot be applied in case of a tenant who leaves behind more than one legatee for in that case the wishes of the testator can get supplanted, on the landlord's unwillingness to respect the same, by the ultimate decision of the court. In other words, in case of a testamentary disposition, where the wish or will of the deceased has got to be respected a decision by the court will not arise and that would necessarily mean that the words quoted above will be rendered nugatory. What we want to emphasise is it is not the heirship but the nature of claim that is determinative. In our considered view the legislature could not have intended to confer such a right on the testamentary heir. Otherwise, the right of the landlord to recover possession will stand excluded even though the original party (the tenant) with whom the landlord had contracted is dead. Besides, a statutory tenancy is personal to the tenant. In certain contingencies as contemplated in Section 5(11)(c)(i) certain heirs are unable to succeed to such a tenancy. To this extent, a departure is made from the general law.
5. In Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 7(15) defines tenant. Section 7(15)(d) mentions that:
In relation to any premises, when the tenant dies, whether the death occurred before or after the commencement of this Act, any member of the tenant's family, who,-
(i) where they are let for residence, is residing, or
(ii) where they are let for education, business, trade or storage, is using the premises for any such purpose, with the tenant at the time of his death, or, in the absence of such member, any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided, in the absence of agreement by, the court.
Explanation-The provisions of this clause for transmission of tenancy shall not be restricted to the death of the original tenant, but shall apply even on the death of any subsequent tenant, who becomes tenant under these provisions on the death of the last preceding tenant.
6. Thus when tenant left behind number of legal heirs, any member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death, or in case of disagreement, as may be decided by the court, can be tenant in respect of the premises governed under the Act. The application in this regard is required to be decided by the Special court. In Greater Mumbai, it is the court of Small Causes, Mumbai, which has to decide any application made under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Section 33 prohibits any other court to exercise jurisdiction in order to entertain any such suit, proceeding or application or to deal with any such hearing or question. That being so, city civil court cannot entertain suit or application in relation to claim as to tenancy in respect of premises governed under the Act.
7. My attention is also invited on behalf of learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to the ruling in Ratanlal Shah vs. Chanbasappa Chincholi and others reported in AIR 1978 Bombay 216, wherein, this court held that where the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant was not in existence at the time of or even prior to the suit for eviction as a result of disclaimer of title, the bar of jurisdiction of civil court does not apply. It was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non to attract the provisions of Section 28. The ruling is distinguishable as in that case, there was no averment regarding relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. In paragraph 32 of the ruling, this court explained the legal position indicating that there must be a contractual tenancy in existence before any statutory tenancy can be posited in favour of a tenant. The tenant whose contractual tenancy is determined, is a tenant within the inclusive definition of the word tenant in Section 5(11) of the Bombay Rent Act, and when a landlord determines a contractual tenancy and claims eviction of a tenant, his claim is triable exclusively by the court contemplated under Section 28 of the Act. Statutory tenancy is protected by the Bombay Rent Act. This court also explained exception in cases where there is surrender of tenancy by the tenant or there is disclaimer, the situation is qualitatively different and is governed by different legal principles. Although the observation is strongly relied upon on behalf of respondent no. 1, considering the averments made in the plaint in the present case, there was no case of any disclaimer, nor surrender of tenancy by the tenant since question of tenancy is not yet decided by the Special court under the Bombay Rent Act, after the death of original tenant.
8. Reliance is also placed upon ruling in H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1470. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the principle is that upon the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. In the present case, however, question is about tenancy governed under the Special Act and not under General law of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, ruling is not attracted.
9. Reliance is also made to Navyug Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Another vs. Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal & Another reported in 2005(3) Bom.C.R. 579, wherein, the issue was regarding decree for specific performance of the obligations imposed on defendant no. 1 as lessee in lease dead. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court after making reference to Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and after making reference to averments made in the plaint, in which directions were sought for proper administration of the Trust, held that neither the provisions of Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, nor the provisions of Section 50 of Bombay Public Trusts Act barred jurisdiction of the High Court on original side to entertain the suit.
10. The principle is well settled that when question of jurisdiction of the court is raised to entertain and try the suit, one has to apply mind to the averments made in the plaint, so as to find out the claim of the plaintiff in substance, as also, nature of the right pleaded along with cause of action and the reliefs sought. There is no need to make reference to written statement or defence by the defendants, when on the basis of averments in the plaint itself, it appears that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the questions arising from the plaint. The court may, upon meaningful reading of the plaint, finding that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but special court has jurisdiction in this case under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the court ought to have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court, so as to decide the questions arising from averments made in the plaint. The provisions relating to jurisdiction of the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in Section 33 read with Section 7(15) operate, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, and also prohibit any other court from exercising jurisdiction, entertain suit, proceeding or application, to decide any claim or question relating to any application, required to be made under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
11. Thus, after demise of original tenant, first question from the averments in the plaint arises as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act after death of Mathuraprasad Yadav (original tenant) when according to plaint itself, Mathuraprasad Yadav left legal heirs as mentioned in gynecology in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the question arose as to who derived tenancy as under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999, legal heirs must agree as to who shall inherit tenancy from the original tenant as "tenant" within the meaning of the Act would be liable to tender rent to the landlord. In default of agreement between the legal heirs, the question can be decided by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
12. The averments in the present case also indicate that the plaintiff was claiming as one of the co-tenants. In other words, the question as to who is tenant, is not yet determined by the Special court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, the question raised regarding relinquishment of tenancy rights was incidental and consequential relief which is close from the main relief as to who is tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. For all these reasons, it must be concluded, that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable as the City Civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of tenancy which is required to be exclusively dealt with and decided under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In respect of the suit premises governed by the said Act, there was a clear bar of Section 33 read with Section 7(15) Clause (d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act for City Civil court to entertain the suit.
13. Hence, impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. However, considering that the questions raised in the suit will have to be answered by the Special court governed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, learned City Civil Judge is directed to return the plaint as required under Order 7 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure.
14. The impugned judgment and order is set aside.
15. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) prayed for eight weeks time to approach City Civil court, Mumbai, for return of plaint and to present it to the Competent court of jurisdiction. Time is granted accordingly from the date of this judgment and order.
16. Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Civil Application no. 3849 of 2012 does not survive and stands disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment