CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAO versus ASHALATA S. GURAM

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 25-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAO 
v. 
ASHALATA S. GURAM 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.) 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates Control Act, 1947; ss. 
14(2) & 15A-Whether and how far statutory tenant governed by the 
C 
Act could have created a valid licence before 1st February, 1973. 
D 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, Article 227-Finding of facts-Scope and 
ambit of jurisdiction of High Court to interfere. 
Statutory interpretation. 
Non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained . . .'-
Expression contained in statute-Meaning of-Court to find out what is 
legal not what is right. 
Mischief rule-Applicability of-Literal construction and reading 
of the statute as a whole to be in consonance with mischief intended to be 
remedied--{Jrammatical construction ordinarily to be resorted to. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s. 108(j)-Lease-Transfer of 
interest-Nature of. 
Indian Easement Act, 1882, ss. 52 & 53: 'Licence'-Nature of. 
Words and Phrases 
'Notwithstanding'-' subject to'-Meaning of. 
Section ISA(l) of the Bombay Rents, .. Hotel and Lodging House 
:J 
Rates Control Act, 1947 inserted by s. 14 of the Amending Act of 1973 
provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in that Act 
or anything contrary in any other law for time being in fore~, or in any 
contract, where any person was on the lst day of February 1973 in 
occupation of any premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a 
room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to have become, for 
H 
the pnrposes of that Act, the tenant of the landlord in respect of the 
866 
l 
1
-( 
) 
·-<· 
SITA RATNA RAOv. ASHALATAS. GURAM 
867 
premises or part thereof, in his occupation. Sub-section (2) of s. ·14 
stipulates that where the interest .of a licensor, who is a tenant of any 
premises, is determined for any reason, the licensee, who by s. ·ISA is 
deemed to be a tenant, shall, subject to the·provisions of the Act be 
deemed to become the tenant of the landlord, on the terms and condi-
tions of the agreement consistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 
13(1) (e) entitles the landlord to ask for the eviction of the tenant if the 
tenant has, after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 
1973 unlawfully given on licence the whole or part of the premises let to 
him. 
The respondent-landlady had an oral lease of her flat situated in 
Bombay, since 1952. She terminated that tenancy by notice in 1970 and 
instituted a suit for possession on the ground of personal requirement. 
The Court of Small Causes passed an ex-parte decree for eviction 
against the tenant in 1972. Th.e appellant obstructed execution of the 
decree on the plea that she was a caretaker of the premises. Subse-
quently the ex-parte decree was set aside and the suit restored. The 
tenant gave evidence that he was in occupation of a part of the premises. 
The trial court passed a decree against the tenant in 1976. The appeal 
filed by him was dimissed by 'the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes 
Court. 
A writ petition filed against the appellate decision was dismissed 
by the High Court in March 1980. The appellant having obstructed the 
execution of the decree confirmed by the High Court, the landlady filed 
an application for 'renioval of the obstruction in the executing court. In 
the reply filed by the appellant in July 1980 it was stated that she was in 
occupation of the whole premises as a licensee, but did not specify any 
date of the agreement nor did she produce any copy thereof. She pro-
·, duced the agreement of leave and licence when her deposition com-
menced before the trial Judge in July 1981 and claimed exclusive pos-
session. The trial Judge on 25th February, 1983 allowed the res-
pondent-landlady's application and ordered removal of the appellant's 
obstruction. The trial court observed that there was no genuine agree-
ment between obstructionist'appellant and the. tenant. However, it 
found that there .was some consideration and that there was very cordial 
relationship between the appellant and the tenant. It concluded that the 
appellant was in exclusive possession of the said premises of not less 
than a room on 1st February, 1973, and prima facie the appellant came 
within the provisions of s. ISA of the Act. Being of the view that in law 
after the termination of the tenancy of the tenaut there was no capacity 
left in the tenant. to grant the leave and licence, it held that there was no 
A 
B 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.