NILESH LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHER versus SHANTABEN PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 08-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
NILESH LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHER
v.
SHANTABEN PURUSHOTTAM KAKAD (SINCE DECEASED)
BY LRS
(Civil Appeal No. 4268 of 2019)
MAY 08, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – ss.16(1)(c), 16(1)(e)
and 16(1)(n) – Respondents-plaintiffs rented out a premises to the
appellants-defendants – Appellants took the premises on rent for
purpose of carrying out business of book shop – Respondents filed
a suit for eviction of the appellants u/ss.16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and
16(1)(n) of the Act – Respondents’ case that in July, 2015, the
appellants closed down the business of the bookstore, and since
then, the premises was not used for more than six months prior to
the suit, for the purpose for it was let out – It was also alleged that
appellants also started business of garments and foodstuff at
different intervals but the same was closed down – Further,
appellants had also sublet the premises to the third party – Trial
court found that all three grounds were not made out and suit was
dismissed – However, Appellate Court allowed the appeal and in
revision, the High Court affirmed the findings of the Appellate Court
– On appeal, held: The grounds of illegal subletting and nuisance
(foodstuff) taken by the respondents unsustainable – Insofar as
ground relating to non-user is concerned, the requirement of
s.16(1)(n) of Act need to be satisfied, it has to be established that
for a period of six months continuously from 20.04.2006 till the
date of institution of the suit, i.e. 20.10.2006 the suit premises were
not used by the tenant/appellants without a reasonable ground for
the purpose for which it was let out i.e. business of book shop –
Besides, under the Shops and Establishments Act, a person having
a shop must be registered – In other words, carrying on a shop or
establishment, as defined in the Act, without registration, would make
it illegal – In the instant case, appellant did not pay any fees for
renewal of the registration during the year 2006 – Burden actually
is on the landlord to establish the non-user – But since, there was
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 460
460
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
no registration for the said period it showed that the appellant could
not have lawfully conducted any business in the suit premises –
Also, the two courts found the ground of non-user u/s.16(1)(n) of
Act established – Therefore, no need to interfere with the judgment
of the High Court – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The following elements must be established
under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
- the premises must have been let out for a particular purpose;
there must be non-user by the tenant for the purpose; the non-
user must be without reasonable cause; the non-user must be
for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the
date of the suit.  [Para 19] [469-B]
2.  The requirement of Section 16(1)(n) will be satisfied if it
is established that for a period of six months continuously from
20.04.2006 till the date of institution of the suit i.e. 20.10.2006,
the suit premises were not used by the tenant without a reasonable
ground for the purpose for which it was let out. Since even the
appellants do not have a case that the appellants were carrying
on the business in readymade garments or fast food during the
period, the only business that the appellants can lay store by, is
the business in books. [Para 25] [470-G-H; 471-A-B]
3. Under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948
under Section 7(2)(A), a registration certificate shall be valid upto
the end of the year for which it is granted. As it stands now, it is
valid for a period of twelve months from the date it is granted or
renewed. This is after the substitution by Act 25 of 2013.
Therefore, the provision, which is relevant, is the previous
provision, under which, as noted, the registration certificate would
be valid upto the end of the year for which it was granted.
Therefore, even going by the registration certificate produced
and under the Act, issued on 09.09.2005, it came to an end by the
end of the year. The word “year” is defined in Section 2(32) as
meaning that “a year commencing first day of January”. Thus,
even the appellant apparently paid the fees for renewal of the
registration only on 09.01.2007. He did not pay any fees for
renewal of the registration during the year 2006. On 30.11.2007,
NILESH LAXMICHAN

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