D. H. MANIAR & ORS. versus WAMAN LAXMAN KUDAV

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 24-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
D. H. MANIAR & ORS. 
v. 
WAMAN LAXMAN KUDA V 
August 24, 1976 
403 
[ P. N. BHAGWATI, N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents Hotel and J.,odgin~ House Rates Control Act 1947-Sec .. 15A--
Sec. 5(4A)-lndian Easements Act 1882-Sec. 52-62(c)-Revocation of licence 
bv efflux of time-Ptesidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882-Scc. 47-Ef]ect 
oj filing of application for eviction-Meaning of licence under a subsisting agree-
ment-Interpretation of Statutes-Practice. 
A 
B 
The appellants granted a licence in respect of certain shop pre.mises i~ Bom-
bay to the respondent under a Leave and Licence Agreement which expired on 
31st March 1966. 
Thereafter the appellants served a notice upon the respon-
C 
dent calling upon him to remove himself from the premises .. The respondent 
refused to do so. 
In July 1967 the a•ppellants filed on application for eviction 
under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act. The contention 
of the respondent that he was a tenant was negatived by the Small Causes Court, 
Bombay. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 227 of the 
Constitution. The High Court refused to interfere with the finding of the Small 
Causes Court that the respondent was a licensee and not a tena·nt. 
The Bombay Rent Act was amended by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973. 
By 
D. 
the amending Act, section 5(4A) and Section 15A were introduced in the 
parent Act to confer on the licensee, who had a subsisting agreement on rebru-
ary 1, 1973, the status and protection of a tenant under the Bombay Rent 
'Act. 
. 
The respondent by an amendment took the plea of protection under the 
Maharashtra Amendment Act 17 of 1973 on the ground that he was in occupa· 
ti'on of the premises on 1st February 1973 under a subsisting agreement for 
E 
licence. 
The Small Causes Court, Bombay, negatived the plea on the ground 
that there was no subsisting &greement for licence on the 1st of Febniary, 1973 
as there was ·nothing on record to show that after 31st March 1966 the leave and 
licence agreement between the parties was rene\.ved or any fresh agreen1ent was 
entered into. 
The respondent llled a revision petition under section 115 of C.P.C. in the 
High Court. The High Court allowed the revision on the ground that the 
licence was not put an end to by the appellants and that in any event by filing 
the application for eviction the appellant licensor had granted an implied licence 
to the respondent licensee to continue in possession till a decree of eviction was 
passed in his favour. 
Allowing the appeal, 
F 
HELD : (a) In order to get the advantage of section 1 SA of the Bombay 
Rent Act, the occupant must be in occupation of the' premises as a licensee as 
defined in section 5(4A) on the !st of February 1973. If he be such a licensee, 
the non-obstante clause of section 15A(l) gives him the status and protection 
G 
of a tenant in spite of there being anything to the contrary in any ot)l.er law or in 
any contract. But if he is not a licensee under a subsisting agreement on the 1st 
of February 1973, · then he does not get !he advanta·ge of the amended provision 
of the Bombay Rent Act. [407 H, 408 A] 
(b) A person continuing in possession of the premises after termination with-
drawal or revocation of the licence continues to occupy it is a trespasser ~r as a 
person who has no semblance of any right to continue in occupation of the 
premises. Such a person cannot be called a licensee at .all. [ 408 BJ 
H 
(~) A l'.ers~n c_ontinuing in occupation of such premises after revocation of 
the. licence 1s still hable to pay compensation. or damages for their use and occu-
pation. [408 E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H· 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
(d) Filing ~ 
applic~tion. under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes 
Comt Act !Il~Y m certa!n. ctrcumsta.nces have. the effect of puting an end to 
t~e licence if it was subs1s.tii;ig on the date of its filing. 
But, that cannot pos-
sibly ha".e. the effect o.f rev1ymg the licence as opined by the learned Judge. Such 
a proposition of law is both novel and inc01pprehensible. ( 408H, 409 GJ 
( e) It is right that the Court should act in consonance with the spirit of the 
Mahara~htra Amending Act 17 of 1973. 
But the Court cannot and should not 
cast the law to the winds or twist or stretch it to a br;:aking point amounting to 
almost an absurdity. [410 CJ 
(f) The finding of the High Court that the respondent was in occupation 
of the pre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.