LexNILESH NANDKUMAR SHAH versus SIKANDAR AZIZ PATEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NJLESH NANDKUMAR SHAH v. SIKANDAR AZIZ PATEL AUGUST 23, 2002 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 6-Tenancy-lntegral tenancy for residential C and commercial purpose-Tenancy for residential purpose protected by the Act but not for other purposes-Eviction sought under Transfer of Property Act-Held, if part of tenancy is protected by Rent Control Le¥islation, it shall take along with it such other part as not protected-Hence, entire tenancy premises would enjoy protection of the Act-If a ground for eviction under the Act from even a part of the premises is made out, eviction can be ordered from D the whole unless the statute or the contract contains a special provision empowering the court to split up the tenancy. E F Interpretation of statutes-Rent Control Legislation and general legislation-Conflict between-Overriding effect of-Held, Rent Control Legislation being special beneficial provision shall override general legislation. Appellant-landlord rented the premises in question for residential as well as commercial purposes. In the area where the tenanted premises was situated Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act) was applicable only in respect of premises let out for residential purpose. Appellant-landlord initiated proceedings for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant-respondents, under Transfer of Property Act, 1872, on the assumption that purpose of letting being dual, Bombay Act was not applicable. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that provisions of G Bombay Act, were applicable in the case. Appeals filed by landlord were allowed by appellate Court, holding that Bombay Act was not applicable in the instant case. Second appeals by the tenant-respondents were allowed by High Court. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H 652 .. - NILESH NANDKUMAR SHAH v. SIKANDAR AZIZ PATEL 653 HELD: I. It is not permissible for the Courts to split up a contract A of tenancy in an eviction proceeding. A tenancy can be split up by operation of law or by contract between the parties. In cases governed by rent control legislation if a ground for eviction in respect of part of the tenancy premises is made out, the decree shall be for eviction from the entire tenancy premises unless the law permits a partial decree of eviction B being passed. The purpose of rent control legislation is to protect the tenants from unjust evictions at the hands of greedy or unscrupulous landlords. In case of doubt, rent control laws should be so interpreted as to lean in favour of tenant, to advance the purpose sought to be achieved by rent control legislation and to see that the beneficial protection extended by the Act is not scuttled down or defeated or rendered nugatory. In the C rent control legislation the relevant provision which regulates or restricts the right of landlords to seek eviction of tenants invariably opens with a non-obstante clause and is given thereby an overriding effect on the statutory or common law right of landlord to evict a tenant. Even in the absence of non-obstante ~lause a rent control legislation being a special beneficial provision shall override the provisions of any general legislation D in case of conflict. It would, therefore, be reasonable and consistent with the principles of interpretation of statutes to hold that such part of the tenancy premises as is protected by the rent control legislation shall take along with it such other part of the tenancy premises as is not protected, the contract of tenancy being an integral one. A view to the contrary would E defeat the provisions of the Rent Control Legislation. [657-H; 658-A, B, C; F, G, HJ Dr. T.S. Subramanian v. The Andhra Bank Ltd, [1989) Supp. 2 SCC 252; Firm Panjuma/ Dau/atram v. Sakhi Gopal, (19771 3 SCC 284; Miss S. Sanya/ v. Gian Chand, (1968) I SCR 536, referred to. F 2. In the instant cases, inasmuch as one portion of the tenancy premises, having its purpose of user as residence, enjoys the protection of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947, the tenant shall not be liable to be evicted from any part of the tenancy G premises, as part of the premises is protected by the Bombay Act and the contract of tenancy is one single and indivisible. Therefore, when the premises are l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.