CASE NAME: SMT. JULIA RODRIGUES V. SMT. CHANDRA GULAB ADVANI & ORS
CASE NO. : Writ Petition No. 6679 of 2003
DATED: 7TH October 2024
QUORUM: Sandeep V. Marne, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff lent a commercial premise to Defendant No. 1 for the laundry business, claiming that Defendant had closed the laundry business in 1977 and was trying to sublet the premises unlawfully the plaintiff sent a notice to Defendant No. 1, which was denied. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of unlawful subletting & construction work on the property which was done without the consent of the plaintiff, this action of the plaintiff was a follow-up action for the notice sent by Defendant 1&2 which stated that Defendant no.1 had lawfully transacted business assets including tenancy.
The Trail favored the plaintiff and passed an eviction decree on September 28, 1994. Defendant no.2 appealed for the same in the District Court of Pune which was dismissed not stopping here Defendant no.2 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the District Court’s decision. The High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Court to reconsider whether the business transfer was lawfully done and whether Defendant No. 1’s business was still a ‘running concern’, giving the chance for both parties to present additional shreds of evidence.
Examining the extra shreds of evidence the Appellate Court changed its original order of eviction stating that Defendant No. 1’s was a running concern at the time of transfer. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Appellate Court in the present petition. During the legal proceedings, the original petitioner died and her legal heir was brought on record. An interim application was also filed stating that Respondent no.4, a company GBK Opticals had violated the status quo order by doing structural work at the property.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The short issue that the court has to decide is whether the act of Defendant No.1 in transferring the laundry business conducted under the name ‘Snow White Cleaners and Dyers’ together with goodwill, stock-in-trade, furniture, fitting and machinery to Defendant No.2 vide registered conveyance executed in May-1981 would tantamount to an act of unlawful subletting within the meaning of Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- SECTION 13(1)(e): Under the provisions of Section 13(1)(e), the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has unlawfully given on license whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred his interest therein.
- Section 15: Section 15 of the Bombay Rent prohibits tenants on subletting or transferring or giving on the license the tenanted premises.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
A well-experienced Senior Advocate Mr. Dani represented the petitioner and argued that the Appellate Court had made a mistake in reversing the original order passed by the Trail Court. He continues his argument by stating that the case involves a clear case of unlawful subletting by Defendant No. 1.
He further points out the fact that Defendant No. 2 was working in Indian Oil Corporation and had no earlier experience of conducting a laundry business. Also, Defendant No. 1 had already shut down his laundry business along with the other two laundries way back in 1977. Following the notice sent by the Plaintiff both the defendants designed documents to prove that the running of laundry business and was run by the defendant no.2.
Moreover, Defendant No. 1’s son who was working elsewhere had his signature on the assignment deed which was confirmed by Defendant himself. He continues by stating that the created trust by defendant no.2 was not capable of conducting a laundry business & was mainly for transferring the tenancy but not for any other activities. Conducting of other businesses by taking off the sign board of Dyers & Dry Cleaners added to the argument. The relying on new evidence by the Appellate Court was criticized. Defendant no.2 had further sublet the premises to GKB Opticals, which was unlawful.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
Appreciating the Appellate Court’s rightful evaluation of the evidence, Ms. Jai Kanade representing the respondents argues back – submitting that the Plaintiff’s pleaded case was disproved on account of her own admissions. They continue stating that the transaction was a transfer of business assets which included tenancy and not any unlawful subletting. There was no evidence to prove the point of faking the assignment. After carefully undergoing all the legal proceedings necessary for the transfer of business, the Respondent claims that the decision of the Appellate Court was appreciable and they were not answerable to the High Court as per Article 227 of the Constitution. Ms. Jai go Kanade with the help of multiple precedents of the Supreme Court claimed that there was no act of unlawful subletting instead it was a lawful transfer. Respondents plead the Court to dismiss the petition based on these arguments.
JUDGEMENT
The writ petition was allowed with the following directions:
The District Court’s judgement was set aside and the decree passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge was confirmed. Defendants and all persons claiming through them were ordered to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff within a period of 2-3. The Court also ordered that the Plaintiff shall receive the mesne profit from the date of decree. The defendants were held liable for the plaintiff’s cost of litigation.
ANALYSIS
The case focuses on the enforcement of tenant obligations under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act. The court’s focus on whether the transfer of the business amounted to unlawful subletting was intelligible. The court’s decision to stay with the original order was fair. The court’s order for vacating the premises by the defendants and for compensation balanced between justice being served to the plaintiff as well as giving time for the defendants to obey the order.
CONCLUSION
The Court decided that the business transfer was unlawful subletting and provided the landlord with the right to recover possession and compensation.
“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 falls into the 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: D.V. DEEKSHA.
