M.M. BILANEY AND ANR. versus FALI RUSTOMJI KUMANA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 27-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.M. BILANEY AND ANR. 
v. 
FALi RUSTOMJI KUMANA 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 
B 
[ARUNKUMARANDA.K.MATHUR,JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-
C Sections 13 (1) (g) and 14-Eviction suit filed against original tenant on 
the ground ofbonafide requirement-Son of original tenant claiming tenancy 
and/or deemed tenancy in his own right and impleaded as defendant and 
contesting suit-Eviction decree passed against original tenant-Original 
tenant not preferring appeal-Gift deed executed by plaintifft in respect of 
D suit premises in favour of third party after passing of eviction decree against 
original tenant-Son contending that suit not maintainable as plaintiffs 
ceased to be landlords after execution of gift deed by them-Held, no subsisting 
tenancy between son of original tenant and plaintifft and son is mere trespasser 
and eviction decree granted against him-Jn the facts, held, son does not 
have any right to challenge ownership of plaintifft-Rs. 50,000 directed to 
E be paid by son of original tenant to plaintifft for use and occupation of the 
premises. 
Appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide 
requirement against R under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel 
F and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Respondent, who is son of R, 
moved an application for impleadment in the said suit which was allowed and 
he was added as defendant in the said suit. Respondent filed written statement 
contending that he was tenant in his own right and/or deemed to be a tenant 
under the Act. R did not contest the suit and a decree of eviction was passed 
against him on 20.6.1981. R did not challenge the decree and it became final. 
G R expired on 3.10.1984. Plaintiffs executed a gift deed on 27.5.1985 in favour 
of third party in respect of the suit premises. Trial Court held that respondent 
had failed to prove his tenancy and as such was a mere trespasser and decreed 
the suit on 30.9.1994. Trial Court further held that suit as filed by the 
plaintiffs was maintainable and the plaintiffs were landlords within the 
H 
622 
M.M. BILANEY v. FALi RUSTOMJI KUMANA 
623 
meaning of the Act for getting possession of the premises under Section 13 A 
(1) (g) of the Act. Respondent preferred appeal against the order of the trial 
Court which was allowed on the ground that the plaintiffs had ceased to be 
owners after execution of the gift deed in 1985 and as such were not landlords 
entitled to seek eviction under Section 13 (1) (g) of the Act. Plaintiffs filed 
writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Bench which was dismissed B 
by the High Court. However, both Appellate Bench and High Court also held 
that there was no subsisting tenancy between the plaintiffs and the respondent 
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this 
appeal 
Appellant-plaintiffs contended that tenancy was not hereditary and once C 
decree of eviction was passed against father of respondent, the respondent 
had become trespasser; and that all Courts below had given concurrent finding 
that there was no subsisting tenancy between the appellants and the respondent 
Respondent contended that when the appellant-plaintiffs had gifted away 
the premises and had cased to be landlords, the suit was not maintainable a{ld D 
they were not entitled to a decree for eviction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Once the respondent has been declared as trespasser by the 
Court below because there was no subsisting tenancy with the original E 
landlord then there was no need of going into the matter of gift of the premises 
in question. In fact, at the time when the suit was filed the appellants were the 
owner of the premises in question and the decree of eviction was passed in 
their favour as the father of the respondent, the original defendant No.I did 
not contest the matter and did not prefer appeal. The primary issue was 
whether respondent can be deemed as a tenant or not Once it is found that F 
the respondent is not a tenant, then he has no right to challenge ownership of 
the appellants as the appellants were already armed with a decree for eviction 
against the original tenant (father of respondent). (630-C; 631-C-D) 
2. Once the decree of eviction has already been granted against the G 
original tenant and the finding has been recorded that the respondent is not 
a tenant then gifting away of the property by the origin

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