LexGANPAT LADHA versus SASHIKANT VISHNU SHINDE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
198 GANPAT LADHA v. SASHIKANT VISHNU SHINDE February 21, 1978 B (M. H. BEG, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] c D E F G H Constitution of India-Articles 226-227-Power of High Courl to interfere with exercise of discretion by Courts below-Bombay Rent Act 1947- Sec. 5(11)c, 12(3)a & 12(3)b-Whether definition of tenant includes a mem- ber of a family of a deceased tenant residing with hi1n at the tinze of his death in case of business premises-Object of rent restriction act-If conditions of 12 (3) b are complied lVith whether Court can exercise discretion in favour of a tenant-Whether conditions laid down by Sec. 12(3)b a!'e to be strictly co1n- plied lvith by tenant. The respondent tenant made an application in 1956 for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In February, 1960, in the said proceedings, the contrac~ tual rent of Rs. 80/ · per month was reduced to Rs. 54.25 per month in re5pect of the shop in dispute. The rent remained in arrears from 1956 to t960. In June and July, 1960, the appellant landlord issued a notice to quit to the res· pondent. Nearly 5 months after the fixation of standard rent the respondent filed a Revision Application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which was summarily dismissed by the High Court. In November, 1960, the appellant filed present suit for eviction. On 30·8·1962, issues were framed and therefore that was the first date of hearing. In June, 1963 the Trial Court held that since the dispute about the standard rent was pending when the suit \Vas filed the provisions of section 12(3) (a) were not attracted. However. the appellant was entitled to a decree, under section 12(3) (b) since the re3pon· dent had not paid the rent regularly in accordance with the provisions of section 12(3)(b). The Appellate Court held that the case was governed by section 12(3)(a) and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to a decree of eviction. The Appellate Court further held that even if the case was governed by section 12 (3) (b), since the respondent had not complied with its provisions the suit was bound to .be decreed in accordance with the decision ·of this Court in the case of Shah Dhansukhlal. The Appellate Court also held that even if any discretion was vested in the Court under section 12(3)(b) of the Act that dis- cretion had been properly exercised by the Trial Court. The respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Appeliate Court. The Writ Petition succeeded before the High Court because the High Court thought that the view expressed by this Court in Shah Dhansukhlal's case still left room for the application of what was laid down by Chagla C. J. in Kalidas Bhavan's case. The original tenant of the shop in question having died during the course of litigation. the present respondent, who is the son of the original tenant was impleaded in the J'Ctition. Section 5(11) ( c) of the Act defines a tenant as including any mem· her of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death. The High Court took the view that section 5(11) ( c) applies not only to residential premises but also to business premises and that, therefore on the death of a tenant of business premises any member of the tenant's f~miiy residing \vith him at the time of his death would become a tenant. Al1owing the appeal, HELD: (~) It i~ difficul~ to see ~o.w in case of business premises the need for showing res1de!1ce w!th the ong1nal tenant at the time of his death would be relevant. It JS obvious from the language of section 5(11 )(c) that the intention of ~h~ Leg~slature in givin¥ protection to a member of the family of the tenant res1d1ng with him at the time of his death was to secure that on - l .. ----- ' ·. t , ) • . GANPAT v. S. V. SHINDE (Beg, C. J.) 199 the death of the tenant the member of his family residing with him at the tin1e A of his death is not thrown out. This protection would be necessary only in case of residential premises. When a tenant is in occupation of business pre- mises there would be no question of protecting against dispossession a member of his family. The tenant may be carrying on a business in which the mem- ber of his family residing with him may not have any interest at all and yet on the construction adopted by the High Court, s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.