LILAWATI H. HIRANANDANI versus USHA TANDON

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 20-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

LILAWATI H. H!RANANDANI 
v. 
USHA TANDON 
OCTOBER 20, 1995 
[KULD!P SINGH AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Presidency Small Causes Cowts Act 1882, Ss.41, 43---0rigi.nal tenant 
gi.ving licence over a portion of flat-Tenant becoming part owner after pur-
chase of building from owner by society of which she was member-Whether 
tenant's title stood tenninated precluding her from seeking ejectment of licen-
cee-Held, no; tenant's title became enlarged and not detennined. 
Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882, S. 42A-Origi.nal tenant 
gi.ving licence over a portion of flat-Tenant becoming part owner after 
purchase of building from owner by society of which she was mem-
ber-Whether licencee can resist ejectment c/abning to be a tenant entitled to 
protection of Rent Act-Held, no; the nomenclature of the a"angement 
concludes the matte1-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Con-
trol Act, 1947. 
Respondent, a member of the Mazagaon Terrace Co-operative Hous-
ing Society Ltd., was allotted the flat in question and in turn gave a licence 
over a portion of it to the appellant. The licence was terminated and an 
ejectment application was filed by the respondent under S.41 of the 
Presidency Small Caus.es Courts Act 1882 (hereinafter 'Act'). Appellant 
claimed under S.42 A of the Act that she was a tenant and entitled to the 
11rotection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control 
Act, 1947. Appellant lost in the Trial and appellate Courts. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Thereafter appellant raised an objection under S.43 of the Act 
contending that since the tenancy of the respondent under the original 
owner had been terminated on her becoming part- owner, She could not 
file the ejectment application. Relying on the earlier order allowing her G 
application, the Trial Court negatived this objection of the appellant. In a 
writ petition thereafter by the appellant, the High Court remitted the 
matter for a fresh decision clarifying that if the appellant failed in her 
objection under S.43 of the Act, she would under S.42-A nevertheless be 
entitled to assail the ejectment order made of the Act. Accepting H 
505 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995J SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant's objection, the Trial Court on remand held that respondent's 
application was not maintainable. The High Court reversed. Hence this 
appeal. 
B 
It was contended that with respondent becoming member of the 
society which came to own the building, her old status of tenant under the 
original onner c.rime to an end. Accordingly, she could not maintain the 
ejectment application under S.43 of the Act. In any event appellant was a 
tenant entitled to the protection of the Rent Act and could accordingly 
challenge the orders made under S.42-A of the Act. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. There was no determination or extingnishment or ter· 
ruination of the tenancy rights of the original tenant when the building 
came to be owned by the society wherein the applicant became a part· 
owner. The words in the explanation to S .43 of the Presidency Small causes 
D Court Act, viz. "permission granted by virtue of a title which determined 
previous to the date of the application" predicate that the status of the 
grantor should have been terminated. The title of the original tenant 
became 'enlarged' or augmented and was not determined. [512-B, 511-C] 
E 
F 
KM. Motwani v. Albeit Sequeira, AIR (1960) Born 18, distinguished. 
2. The plea based on s.42 of the Act is without substance. The 
appellant and the respondent chose to call the arrangement as a 'licence'. 
The specific nomenclature of the arrangement should conclude the matter. 
It is idle to contend that the appellant is entitled to the protection of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as a 
tenant. [514-B] 
Swam Singh v. Madan Singh, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 306, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTlON: Civil Appeal No. 2412 of 
G 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.91 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 1823 of 1983. 
Harish N. Salve, Vijay Kumar and Ms. Sangcela Kumar, for the 
H Appellant. 
L.H. HIRANANDANI. v. USHA TANDON [PARIPOO:K.NAN. J.j 
507 
Shankar Ghosh and Prnbir Choudhary for the Respondcnl. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PARIPOORNAN, J. The original respondeilt in Ejectment Applica-
tion No. 149/929/E of 1%6 in the Court of Small Causes al Bombay B 
respondent in Writ Petition No. 1823/83 (hereinafter referred to as

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