1)When revision is tenable against orders passed under Maharashtra rent control Act?
85. Following are instances of revisable orders.
(i) an order refusing leave to amend the plaint or written statement, where the proposed amendment is for assertion of rights or liabilities under the Rent Act or any other substantive law
(ii) an order rejecting an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of the CPC
(iii) an order allowing or rejecting an application for a declaration that the suit has abated
(iv) an order refusing to extend the time for filing a written statement
(v) an order for deleting an issue pertaining to rights or liabilities under the Rent Act, or any other substantive law
This list is illustrative and not exhaustive.
86. Following are instances of orders which would not be revisable orders:-
(i) an order granting leave to amend plaint or written statement
(ii) an order granting extension of time to file written statement
(iii) an order raising additional issue
(iv) an order made for production of documents or discovery or inspection.
(v) an order directing a plaintiff/defendant to furnish better and further particulars
(vi) an order issuing or refusing to issue a commission for examination of witnesses
(vii) an order issuing or refusing to issue summons for additional witness or document
(viii) an order condoning delay in filing documents, after the first date of hearing.
(ix) an order of costs to one of the parties for its default
(x) an order granting or refusing an adjournment
(xi) an order allowing an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC
This list is also illustrative and not exhaustive.
87. As regards question No. 1 about scope and ambit of power of revision under Section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, our answer is that after the revisional Court is satisfied about maintainability of the revision application, the revisional Court will consider whether the impugned order is according to law. However, "according to law" refers to the order as a whole, and is not to be equated to errors of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers to the overall order, which must be according to law, which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to mistake of law. Hence, mere breach of, or non-conformity with, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act or similar other procedural laws, will not be a ground for interfering with the impugned order of the trial Court. The revisional powers are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. As a general rule where substantial justice has been done by order of the lower Court, the revisional Court will not interfere with it notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the order are not correct or the order is improper or irregular. The writ petitions will now go back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and deciding them in light of the principles laid down in this judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition Nos. 9562, 8029 and 907 of 2010
Decided On: 21.01.2013
Bhartiben Shah, Vs. Smt. Gracy Thomas and Others
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.S. Shah, C.J., R.V. More & N.M. Jamdar, JJ.
Citation:2013(2) ALLMR 9 FB.
Read full judgment here:Click here
2)Whether court should direct tenant to pay compensation to landlord while staying eviction decree?
That apart, it is to be noted that the appellate Court while exercising jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code did have power to put the tenant-appellant on terms. The tenant having suffered an order for eviction must comply and vacate the premises. His right of appeal is statutory but his prayer for grant of stay is dealt with in exercise of equitable discretionary jurisdiction of the appellate Court. While ordering stay the appellate Court has to be alive to the fact that it is depriving the successful landlord of the fruits of the decree and is postponing the execution of the order for eviction. There is every justification for the appellate Court to put the tenant-appellant on terms and direct the appellant to compensate the landlord by payment of a reasonable amount which is not necessarily the same as the contractual rate of rent. In Marshall Sons & Co. (I) Ltd. v. Sahi Oretrans (P) Ltd. and Anr., MANU/SC/0079/1999 : [1999]1SCR311 , this Court has held that once a decree for possession has been passed and execution is delayed depriving the judgment-creditor of the fruits of decree, it is necessary for the Court to pass appropriate orders so that reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent is paid by a person who is holding over the property.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 7988 of 2004 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6415 of 2002)
Decided On: 10.12.2004
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.C. Lahoti, C.J. and G.P. Mathur, J.
Citation: 2005(3) BomCR274
Read full judgment here:Click here
Read full judgment here: Click here
Read full judgment here:Click here
3) Whether court can fix rent with reference to Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner?
In light of the discussions made above we hold that in an appeal or revision preferred by a tenant against a order or decree of an eviction passed under the Rent Act it is open to the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent. Needless to say that in fixing the amount subject to payment of which the execution of the order/ decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount.
47. In the case in hand, the High Court has fixed the amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- per month with reference to the Stamp Duty Ready Reckoner and hence, its reasonableness cannot be doubted. In fairness to Mr. Lalit he did not challenge the fixation of the amount on that ground.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs M/S Super Max ... on 27 August, 2009
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, Aftab Alam
Citation: AIR2010SC722,(2009)9SCC772.Read full judgment here: Click here
4)Whether eviction decree on ground of bonafide need can be refused to landlord if he fails to disclose that he is possession of several properties?
However, the respondent-landlords, have not at all been candid with the Court insofar as the pleadings are concerned. In the course of evidence, it has come on record that the respondent-landlords have, besides the suit premises several other premises, which are being used by them for purposes of commerce as well as residence. Some of the premises, may have been acquired post the institution of the suit including in particular, the premises acquired by one of the sons of Baitullah Shaikh. Nevertheless, there were no disclosures volunteered in the course of examination-in-chief. Even if, the premises subsequently acquired are left out of consideration, there was a duty upon the respondent-landlords to fully and candidly make disclosure about the premises in their occupation, both for the purposes of residence as well as commerce and thereafter to explain, howsoever briefly, the subsistence of the need in respect of suit premises. The respondent-landlords have completely failed in this aspect. Such non-disclosure is a relevant consideration in the context of determining both the reasonability as well as bona fides.
Nevertheless, from the material on record, it is apparent that the landlords have in their occupation several properties and carry on several businesses and these facts were suppressed by the landlords in their plaints seeking eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The belated explanation that some of the properties are taken on rent or rented, that some of the properties are not in the names of the landlords or that some of the properties are joint family properties, hardly inspire any confidence. In any case, the reasons, do not apply to all the properties in regard to which, the material has been produced on record by the applicants. It was the duty of the landlords to have made disclosure in their pleadings and thereafter, offered explanation, howsoever brief, as to how despite the occupation of all such properties, need in respect of the suit premises subsists and is further bona fide and reasonable. Such pleading or disclosure, would have enabled the applicants to meet the case set out by the landlords. In absence of such disclosures on vital and relevant matters, no decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Rent Act is sustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Civil Revision Application No. 770 of 2013,
Decided On: 04.08.2015
Vasant Mahadeo Gujar and Ors. Vs. Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.S. Sonak, J.
Citation: 2016(4) ALLMR 174
Read full judgment here: Click here
5) Whether small cause court mumbai has jurisdiction to order eviction of gratuitous licensee?
We are of the considered view that the High Court has correctly noticed that the clubbing of the expression “licensor and licensee” with “landlord and tenant” in Section 41(1) of the PSCC Act and clubbing of causes relating to recovery of licence fee is only with a view to bring all suits between the “landlord and tenant” and the “licensor and licensee” under one umberalla to avoid unnecessary delay, expenses and hardship. The act of the legislature was to bring all suits between “landlord and tenant” and “licensor and licensee” whether under the Rent Act or under the PSCC Act under one roof. We find it difficult to accept the proposition that the legislature after having conferred exclusive jurisdiction in one Court in all the suits between licensee and licensor should have carved out any exception to keep gratuitous licensee alone outside its jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India
Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors. vs Manharbala Jeram Dmodar & Anr. on 13 August, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment