KESRI COMMISSARIAT & OTHERS versus MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 03-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012] 3 S.C.R. 1010 
KESRI COMMISSARIAT & OTHERS 
v. 
MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. OF 
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3356-3357/2012) 
APRIL 03, 2012. 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
C Act, 1947: 
D 
s.4(1) - Exemption - Held: The provision applies to 
premises and not to parties or their relationship. 
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 
s.3(1)(b) - Exemption - Premises belonging to trust- Let 
out to New India Assurance Company in 1954 - Tenant 
subletting the premises to State Government in 1959 - Suit 
for recovery of possession - Tenant and sub-tenant claiming 
E exemption - Held: Clause (b) of sub-s.(1) of s.3 makes it clear 
that the Act does not apply to any premises let or sub-let to a 
bank, public sector undertaking or certain other categories of 
tenants - Insurance Company is covered u/s 3{1)(b) -
Therefore, the Act does not apply to the tenant, New India 
F Assurance Company - Thus, the tenant is not protected -
When the Act does not cover the tenant, as basically, the 
exemption applies only to premises and not to any 
relationship, the sub-tenant cannot enjoy better protection -
Order passed by High Court set aside and the judgment and 
G decree of eviction against both the defendants passed by the 
appellate court restored - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947 - ss.4(1) and 15. 
H 
The plaintiffs-appellants, being the trustees of the 
1010 
KESRI COMMISSARIAT v. MIN. OF FOOD & CIVIL 1011 
SUP., GOVT. OF MAH., MUMBAI 
Parsee Girls' School Association, filed a suit against the A 
defendants-respondents for recovery of the suit 
properties and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs 
was that the Parsee Girls' School Association was a 
public trust and was running a Girls High School in its 
building. In the year 1954, the plaintiffs let out two floors s 
of the said building to defendant No. 1, the New India 
Assurance Company Ltd. The said company, in the year 
1959, without thy knowledge and consent of the 
plaintiffs, inducted defendant no. 2, the Ministry of Food 
and Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra, as a sub- c 
tenant. It was the stance of the plaintiffs that they, being 
in need of the suit property for the School, asked the 
defendants to deliver the possession and on their failure 
to do so issued notice on 19.11.2001 terminating the 
tenancy of defendant No. 1. The trial court decreed the 0 
suit against defendant no. 1 but held that defendant no. 
2 was proved as a lawful sub-tenant and, as such, was 
protected under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent 
Control Act, 1999 and, therefore, decree for possession 
in respect of the said defendant could not be granted. E 
However, the appellate court decreed the suit for 
recovery of possession against both the defendants and 
directed for mesne profits. The writ petition filed by 
defendant no. 2 was allowed by the High Court holding 
that it enjoyed the protection of the 1999 Act. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The provision of s.4(1) of The Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 
applies to premises and not to parties or their G 
relationship. [Para 22] [1029-G] 
Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. D. C. Patel 
(1953) 4 SCR 185; Nagji Va/labhji and Company v. Meghji 
Vijpar and Company and Another 1988 (3) SCR 906 = 
(1988) 3 SCC 68; and Parwati Bai v. Radhika 2003 (3) 
H 
1012 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
SCR 1073 =AIR 2003 SC 3995- relied on 
Rudlerv. Franks (1947) 1 K.B. 530; and Percy G. Moore, 
Ltd. v. Stretch (1951) 1 All ER 228; and Cow v. Casey (1949) 
1 K.B. 474 - referred to 
B 
1.2. Section 3 of the 1999 Act uses the term 
'premises'. The provision commences with the non-
obstante clause that the Act does not apply to any 
premises belonging to the Government or a local 
authority. Clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s.3 makes it clear that 
C the Act does not apply to any premises let or sub-let to a 
bank, public sector undertaking or certain other 
categories of tenants. The Insurance Company is 
covered u/s 3(1)(b). Thus, as a logical corollary, the Act 
does not apply to the premises held by the New India 
D Assurance Company, who is a tenant. When the Act does 
not cover the tenant, as basically the exemption applies 
only to premises and not to any relationship, the sub-
tenant who becomes a deemed tenant cannot enjoy a 
better pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.