Title: BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR. VERSUS KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1543 & 1544 OF 2016
Date of Judgment- 30th January 2024
CORAM: Justice Anuradha Bose & Justice Bella M. Tiwari
Facts of the Case:
The dispute involves landlords, and appellants, challenging a judgment by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 04.08.2015, which invalidated eviction decrees against two tenants concerning portions of a building.
The property in question is located at Dr. Sobane Road in Mahabaleshwar, District-Satara, Maharashtra, with municipal records listing it as House No. 86 (C.S. No. 111/b in city survey records). Two civil appeals (No. 1543 of 2016 and No. 1544 of 2016) arose from suits filed in 2010 against tenants Khatija Ismail Panhalkar and the deceased Vasant Mahadeo Gujar, respectively.
The eviction notices were based on various grounds, including default in rent, unauthorized construction, subletting, and the municipality’s demolition notices issued in 2002 and subsequent years. The suits were decreed by the Trial Court but overturned in the Appellate Court, which sustained the eviction orders based on the landlords’ bona fide need and the necessity to demolish the building.
The tenants then appealed to the Revisional Court, which, after analyzing Sections 15 and 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, set aside the judgment and allowed the revision applications, favoring the tenants. The landlords, aggrieved by the decision of the Revisional Court, have approached the Supreme Court through the present petition. In their appeal before the Supreme Court, the landlords contest the decision of the Revisional Court, emphasizing issues related to the bona fide need, necessity for demolition, and likely challenges to the interpretation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Laws Involved:
Section 15 & 16 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Section 15 of the 1999 Act outlines provisions related to the recovery of possession by a landlord. It stipulates that a landlord cannot seek eviction if the tenant pays or is willing to pay the standard rent and adheres to other tenancy conditions. The landlord must wait for 90 days after serving notice of rent or increases before filing an eviction suit. Furthermore, the court may prevent eviction if the tenant pays arrears within 90 days, and ongoing payments, along with court-directed costs. It also allows the court to use tenant-tendered amounts to pay the landlord during ongoing legal proceedings.
Section 16 provides circumstances under which a landlord can recover possession. These include tenant misconduct, unauthorized structures, nuisance, immoral/illegal activities, landlord’s legitimate needs (occupation, repairs, demolition), and non-use of premises. It also details conditions for eviction based on the landlord’s plans for demolition and reconstruction, ensuring tenant consent, and providing suitable alternative premises. The section emphasizes protecting tenants in specific situations, discourages unlawful assignment of eviction decrees, and considers hardships before granting eviction, particularly in certain premises and cantonment areas. The section also addresses eviction suits against all tenants in premises sought to be demolished.
Issues framed by the Court:
Whether or not the case can be sustained and forms valid grounds for eviction under section 15 of the 1999 Act?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
In the context of Section 15, the landlord’s alleged grounds such as unauthorized construction, causing permanent damage, nuisance, and inducting a relative as a subtenant. The appellants argued that the property became dangerous due to rusting beams. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in interpreting Section 15, as the rents were regularly offered but refused by the landlords. The High Court concluded that there was no default in payment of rent.
Regarding Section 16, the landlords sought eviction for demolition and construction. The High Court found that the fact-finding forums failed to determine which part of the premises should be vacated for construction, as required by Section 16(4). The Court emphasized the necessity to consider the condition of the building and test the question of part vacating for eviction based on Sections 16(1)(h) and (i). The landlords’ bona fide need under Section 16(2) was disputed, and the High Court affirmed that the landlords failed to disclose all relevant information about their other properties.
Concerning Section 16(1)(k), which allows eviction for immediate demolition, the High Court scrutinized the demolition notice. While a flaw in labeling the notice with the relevant provision was deemed not fatal, the Court found fault in the notice’s content, indicating a lack of immediate purpose of demolition. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the local authority doesn’t substitute the Court’s satisfaction on immediacy.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. It affirmed the High Court’s findings that the eviction based on Section 16(1)(g) lacked satisfaction, the landlords failed to disclose relevant information, and the eviction under Section 16(1)(k) lacked the immediacy of demolition. The Court held that the Revisional Court correctly identified the mismatch between facts and legal provisions, supporting the set aside of the judgment and decree.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to read the Judgment
