LexS.J. PANDE versus P.K. BALAKRISHNAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
S:J.PANDE
v.
P.K. BALA KRISHNAN
APRIL 29, 1993
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHAL, JJ.]
. Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
Section 15A-Licence-Statutory Tenant-Cannot crea.re a valid licence
c unless he was deemed on a par with contractual tenant by provision in the statute .
. The appellant-landlord determined the tenancy of the contrach.ial
tenant iil.1966 and fded a suit for his eviction. The suit was decreed ex-parte;
fo exe¢uti~n proceedings the licensee obstructed and claimed to he protected
···licensee µnder Section ISA of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House
D
Rate~ Control Act, 1947. The objection was rejected by the executing Court.·
. The appellate Court confirmed the same holding that even though the first
licence was, created in 1966 before determination of the tenancy for a period
of six years and the second licence having been created in 1972, it was not
necessary to .examine the validity of the first, as the second one was created
. wi)e~ contractual tenant had become statutory tenant, and therefore, he was
E · incapable of transferring any right or interest in favour of the licensee.
F
On:appeal, the High Court upheld the finding of the appellate court that
the licence was created in 1972 It also held that creation of licence by a
. sta•tutory tenant, was valid.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the ~:ligh Court, the appellant~
landlQrd prdered an appeal, before the Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
G
HELD: 1.1 In the absence of any legislation touching the contract, a
co~tractual tenant is left with no transferable right after determinaticn of his
tenancy. (465-B)
1.2 The law would operate in favour ofa person who held the premises
u~der valid licence. A valid licence could be created, by a {.:ontractual tenant
H or by a statutory tenant if he continued at par with contractual tenant by
460
-
PANDE v. BALAKRISHNAN [R.M. SAHA! J.]
461
operation of legislation. ( 465-G)
1.3 In the instant case, the licence was granted by the contractual tenant
in 1972. But his tenancy had been determined by the landlord in 1966. He thus
had become statutory tenant. He did not, in law had any assignable interest
on the date he created the licence. The grantor, therefore, from a cause
preceding the grant had ceased to have any interest, and was incapable of
creating any valid licence unless he could be deemed to be at par with the
contractual tenant by any provision in the Statute. In absence of any such
provision in the Bombay Rent Act, the licence was invalid and stood revoked.
The occupation of the respondent thus was not as licensee within the meaning
of Section ISA of the Act. (466-8-C)
Vasant Tatoba Hargude .and Ors. v. Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari AIR 1980
Bombay 341, approved.
Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v.Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi & Others, AIR 1965
SC 414; Jai Singh Morarji and others v. Mis Sovani (P) Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 772;
Damadilal and others v. Parashram and Others, AIR 1976 SC 2229 and
lttdhichem Agencies v.Ahmed R. V. Peer Mohamed and Anr., [1982] 1SCR511,
referred to.
A
B
c
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4233 of 1984.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.1983 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 25of1982.
S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
Umesh Bhagwat and V.B. Joshi for the Respondent.
The,Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
R.M. SAHAI J. Can a statutory tenant create a licence? If the answer is in
G
affirmative then can such licensee claim immunity from eviction in execution
proceedings in view of Section l 5A of th~ Bombay Rent HoteI and Loging House
Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 (hereinfter referred to as 'the Act')? These are
questions which arise for consideration in this appeal directed against the judg-
ment and order of the Bombay High Court.
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993) 3 S.C.R.
A
What happened was that the landlord determined the tenancy of the
contractual tenant in October 1966 and filed a suit for his eviction in 1967 which
was decreed ex-parte on 5th October 1973. In execution of the decree the licensee
obstructed and claimed to be protected licensee under Section 15A of the Act. The
objection was rejected by the executing and the appellate court. The appellate
court found that even though the· first licence was, created in 1966 befort;
B determination of the tenaricy for a period of six years but the second licence having
been created iExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.