LexANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE versus RUKHIBEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2017] 3 S.C.R. 214
ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE
v.
RUKHIBEN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5284 of2006)
APRIL 12, 2017
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviclio11:
Evie/ion of tenanted shop - Sought 011 the ground of default
in payment of rent and suble11i11g of the premises without permission
of the landlord - Eviction order by trial court - Appellate Court
set aside the eviction order - High Court in Revision upheld the
order of appellate court - On appeal, held: In view of the evidence,
the tenants are liable to be evicted on three grounds (i) default in
payment of rent; (ii) sons of the original lenant not entitled Lo the
benefit of s.5(JJ)(c); and (iii) sublelling - Tenants directed to
handover vacant possession lo the landlord - Bombay Rents, Hotel
and Lodging House Ra1es Control Act, 19./7 - ss.12(3){a) and
5(11)(c).
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 12 of Bomuay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947 deals with the ejectment of a
tenant. As per Section 12(1) of the Act, a landlord shall not be
entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as
the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay the amount of the
standard rent and permitted increases, if any and observes and
performs the other conditions of the tenancy, insofar as they are
consistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 12(3)(a) deals
with the eviction where rent is payable by the month. Section
12(3)(b) of the Act deals with other cases other than monthly
tenancy. (Para 11][219-J<-GJ
1.2 From the evidence of appellant-landlord admittedly there
was default in payment of rent for more than six months and the
tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act.
The appellant-h111dlord has asserted that the tenancy was a
monthly tenancy, where rent of Rs.30/- was due on 61h day of each
214
ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE v. RUKHIBEN AND
215
ORS.
month and rental receipt was issued accordingly. To Sl!bstantiate
his evidence, the appellant has produced J<:x.27 which is a receipt
for payment of rent from 06.03.1974 to 05.04.1974. The rent
was due from 0(1.07.1974 to 05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/-
for twenty two months and Hs.lO/- was already in credit of the
defendant, thus an amount of Rs.650/- was due. Notice (Ex.Ji)
was sent by the appellant's advocate that the arrears of rent is
Rs.650/- which the defendant had received by Ex.4/2. The
defcndai1t-origi11al tenant neither sent reply to the said notice
nor disputed the standard rent. By producing Ex.27 receipt and
other receipts, the ap11cllant-la11dlord has established that the
tcnai1cy was a 'monthly tenancy'. [Paras 13, 15)[221-F;222-B-E)
1.3 The notice issued by the Defendant No. 112 dated
27.01.2004, also clearly stated that the tenancy is a 'monthly
tenancy' at a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. As pointed out by the trial
court, the defendants deposited the amount after a lapse of one
month after the receipt of notice. Rcsuhanlly, the respondent-
defendant Nos. l/2 and 1/3 arc liable to be evicted on the ground
of default in payment of rent. The flrst Appdlate Court and the
High Court erred in ignoring the material evidence that the
tenancy was a monthly tenancy and that the case would fall under
Section 12(3)(a). The finding of the High Court as also of the
first Appellate Court that the present tenancy is covered under
Section 12(3)(b) is liable to be set aside and the order of eviction
passed by the trial court on the ground of default in payment of
rent is to be restored. !Para 16][222-F-G; 223-A)
2. The Ffrst Appellate Court and the High Court failed to
appreciate that the defendant No.112 was a full time worker
employed somewhere else and defendant No. 1/3 was carrying
on his business separately. The findings of the trial court that the
defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 .(the sons of the deceased-original
tenant) are not entitled to the benefit of Section 5(1l)(e), is well
reasoned aml based on evidence and the· same is to be restored.
[Para 19][224-U]
3. So far as the sub-letting is concerned, the defendant
No.112 stated that the second defendant was engaged as their
worker and that he was being paid 50% of the charges as worker
and he did not find it prnliti>'.1le and, he had left the job. The fact
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
216
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 3 S.C.R.
that a stranger was engaged in the shop anExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.