LexJAI SINGH MORARJI & ORS. versus M/S SOVANI PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G JAi SINGH MORARJI & ORS . ... Mis SOVANI PVT. LTD. & ORS. October 9. 1972 IA. N. R.\Y. D. G. f'ALEKAR, M. H. BEG A);D S. N. DWiVU)I. JJ.] Bvn1bay R£•nts, JJotel llncl Lodging, House Ratt·s Central Act, SecliolJ J 5 ( 2 )-Validation of suh·l.etting hy J 959 a1ne11ding Ordinance-Protec- tion only to transfers, assi}?n111ents, or s11h-/ease.\· h:r tenanr.f-Sun.lc•a.\'i' 1ntrfl he in pns<;ei;.~·ion whl'n l11nending Ordinance ca1ne into forCt'. f The owner let out the premises to one Occhhavlal in 1952. Occhhav- Jal sub-let the premises to one Sovani. About 1952. Sovani assigned his husinc.ss \.\.ith the possession of the suit premises to a private Company of which he h<camc the Director. Rent was paid to the landlord upto 1966 by Occhhavlal. The owner obtained the posse·sion of the suit pre- mises in execution of a decree obtaincJ against Occhhavlal for n<1!l-pay- mcnt of rent ~1n<l sub-letting. The assignee. private compiloy, made an application for a relief against the Jisposscs~ion under Order XXI, RuJc JOO of the CoJe of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court gra;!ltcd the relief. but the same was reversed by the appdlatc authority on the revision application filed by the owner. On th" writ petition filed by the private company, the Bombay High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that Ihc private company was a tenant entitled ·lo the protection of Seq. 15(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Allowing the appeal filed by the ow,ner, HELD: Sec. 15(2) of the Act pro\ccts only sub-leases or assign· ments or transfer by the tenants. but. docs not protect subsequent assign- ments or transfers by assignees of trankrerccs. The proviso and explanation to Sec. 15(1) of the Act protects transfer of interest in notified lease or c!ass of lease to assignees or transferees as well as subsequent assignments or transfers. The assignmcnt.s in 'favour of the private company was not covered by any notification issued u/s 15 (I) of the Act. The assign· meat to the private company was not made by the tenant but suh·tCnant. When the Ordinance of 1959 came into force, Sova:ni did not continue in posses:::'.Jn. It was the private company \Vhich was in pCb~ess1on Th·zrefor:!. the private. company is not entitled to protection u 's 15 (1) of the Act. Section 108 (2) of the Transfer of Property Act notices disti;nction between sub·lcase by a lessee and transfer by snh-lessce of his interest hy subsequent transfer. [607C. Fl N. W. Nayak v. C/1/iota/11/ Harira111. 69 Born. LR. 551. approvcJ. Civ1L Al'PELUTE JuRISDlCTION : Civil Appeal No. 269 c.f 1972. H Appeal by ;pccir.\ leave from the judgment and order January 28, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Special Application No. 2Hl8 of 1971. dated Civil ~04 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 s.c.R. V. M. Tarl:11nd<', D. N. Misra, J.B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur A and Ravinrler N11rai11, for the appellants. V. V. Patel, S. S. Javali, D. N. Hungund and Vineet Kumar. for the respondent,. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B f..AY, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judg- ment dated 28 January 1970 of the High Court at Bombay. The High Ccurt in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitutio11 quashed an order of the Court of Small Causes, Boll)!Jay. c A trust known as Padamsi Bhanji Trust of Bombay owned a gouown at 8 Mugbhat Lane, Girgaum, Bombay. The tenant o~ the property before 1952 was Ochhavlal. The property there- after came into possession of S. V. Sovani. Sovani carried on the business of preparation and sale of scientific apparatus. Abouc 1952 Sovani became Director of Sovani Private Limited Com- D pany referred to as the Private Company. The Private Company went into possession of the godown as also the business which was carried on by Sovani. Rent was paid up to the year 1966 in the name of Ochhavlal. .Rent receipts were also in the name of Ochhavlal. In the year 1966 the trust employee who collected rent refused to accept rent. Thereafter rent wa' sent by money E order to the trustees. The trustees dicl. not accept the money orders. The trustees in the year 1970 filed suit possession. Ochhavlal was the defendant in the suit. The grounds· for evic- tion of Ochhavlal were first that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent from 1966, and, secondly, he was guilty of sub-letting. F The suit was decreed ex-parte in the month of March, 1971. On 8 April, 1971 the trust
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.