Daily Archives: April 15, 2017

40 years to vacate a NON paying tenant & get back own property !! Justice delayed is …

                                                                  REPORTABLE                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5284 OF 2006
ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE …Appellant

                                   Versus

RUKHIBEN AND ORS. …Respondents
                               J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.

      This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2003 in

Civil Revision Application No.1517 of 1983 passed by the High Court of

Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissing the revision petition thereby affirming

the order of the First Appellate Court which reversed the order of eviction

passed by the trial court. Vide impugned order, the High Court declined to

order eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting

without the permission of the landlord.
2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows: The

appellant herein is the owner of the property known as “Radha Bhuvan” a two

storeyed building situated on Vadi Rang Mahal, Hathia Khan Road, Vadodara

City near Alankar Studio and flour mill. The property consists of ground

floor, first floor and second floor. The ground floor of the suit premises

was let out to the first respondent-defendant No.1 Manilal Ishwarbhai

Valand-the original tenant in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-.

The original tenant was running a hair cutting salon in the rented premises

under the name of ‘Excellent Hair Dressing Saloon’. The tenancy commenced

from the 6th day of the month and ended on 5th day of the following month

and for payment of rent, receipt was given from time to time. The original

tenant was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly, that is, on the

due date of each month and he was in arrears of rent for the period ranging

from 06.07.1974 to 05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/ for twenty two months.

On wilful default in payment of rent, a notice was duly served upon the

original tenant to make payment of the above arrears within one month from

the date of receipt of notice and the tenant has neither paid the arrears

nor sent any reply. Left with no alternative, the appellant-plaintiff was

constrained to file Rent Suit No.499 of 1978 on 29.09.1978 before the Court

of Small Causes Judge at Vadodara seeking possession of the property and

arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant

Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand died on 26.11.1979 and his legal representatives

viz., his wife and two sons namely, Dahyalal and Bhogilal were brought on

record as defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/3.
3. One of the sons of the tenant named Bhogilal independently runs hair

cutting salon on Ajwa Road opposite to Navjivan Society. Similarly, another

son Dahyalal was serving in Alembic Glass Works for the last 10 to 12

years. Even when tenant-Manilal was alive, his son Dahyalal never worked

with his father and never helped him in running the shop. After the death

of the original tenant-defendant No.1 Manilal, the appellant-plaintiff

found that one Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand was inducted into the suit

premises by illegal sub-letting of the tenanted premises so as to deprive

the appellant-plaintiff of his legal right to seek possession of the suit

property. The said Somabhai Dahyabhai Valand was arrayed as defendant No.2

in the suit (respondent No.4 in this appeal).
4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and the

submissions made by the respective parties, the Small Causes Court allowed

the rent suit on the ground of default in payment of rent by the

respondents-defendants and also directed them to handover peaceful and

vacant possession of the property to the appellant-plaintiff. It was

further held by the Small Causes Court that after the death of the original

tenant, the defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are not statutory tenants of the said

premises and that the defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 have unlawfully sub-let the

suit property to respondent No.4 herein with an ulterior motive of

depriving the appellant-plaintiff from obtaining peaceful and vacant

possession of the suit premises.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Small Causes Court, the legal

representatives of the original tenant preferred Civil Appeal No.227 of

1981 before the District Judge, Vadodara. The 2nd Extra Assistant Judge,

Vadodara on 30.07.1983 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein.

The First Appellate Court held that under notice Ex.31, appellant-plaintiff

demanded rent and other local taxes and hence the tenancy was not a monthly

tenancy but annual, and rent was payable at the end of every year and that

the case of the appellant-plaintiff was covered under Section 12(3)(b) of

the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [Bombay

Rent Control Act]. The First Appellate Court further held that the

appellant-plaintiff failed to prove that defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/3 had sub-

let the premise to the second defendant/4th respondent. On these findings,

the appellate court reversed the order of eviction passed by the trial

court.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Court,

the appellant-plaintiff preferred the revision before the High Court under

Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. As noted above, the High

Court dismissed the revision holding that there is no default in payment of

rent and that the defendants have deposited all the amount due, on the

first day of the hearing of the suit and thus, complied with the provisions

of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Insofar as the sub-

letting is concerned, the High Court affirmed the findings of the first

appellate court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, the appellant-

plaintiff is before us by way of this appeal.
7. When the matter was taken up for admission and notice was issued,

though the service was complete none appeared for the respondents. In the

interest of justice, by order dated 08.03.2017, we directed the Registry to

engage a counsel for the respondents through the Supreme Court Legal

Services Committee and Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate was nominated to appear

for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as a matter of fact

respondents were persistent defaulters in payment of rent for the period

ranging from 06.07.1974 to 05.05.1976 which the High Court failed to

appreciate properly. It was further submitted that the case falls under

Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, as per which if the

tenant is in arrears of rent for more than six months he is liable to be

evicted and, therefore, the Rent Controller had rightly directed the

respondents to vacate the premises. It was further submitted that after the

demise of the original tenant, respondent No.4 Somabhai Dahiyalal Valand

was inducted into the suit premises as sub-lessee and thus the respondents

are also liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting without the

permission of the landlord. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff

further submitted that the First Appellate Court and the High Court failed

to properly appreciate the evidence and materials placed on record and

hence the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants

submitted that both the appellate court as well as the High Court have

dealt with all the issues extensively and have rightly arrived at the

conclusion that case would fall under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay

Rent Control Act and that the appellant-plaintiff failed to prove the case

of sub-letting without the permission of the landlord.
10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the

impugned judgment and other materials on record.
11. Section 12 of Bombay Rent Control Act deals with the ejectment of a

tenant. As per Section 12(1) of the Act, a landlord shall not be entitled

to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays,

or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and

permitted increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions

of the tenancy, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of this

Act. Section 12(3)(a) deals with the eviction where rent is payable by the

month. Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Control Act deals with other

cases other than monthly tenancy. Section 12(3)(a) and (b) with relevant

explanations read as under:
“12. No ejectment ordinarily to be made if tenant pays or is ready and

willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases. ?
     (1)……

     (2)……

     (3)(a). Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute

regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such a

rent or increase are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the

tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period

of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the Court may

pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession.

      (b). In any other case no decree for eviction shall be passed in any

such suit if on the day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other

date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard

rent and permitted increases then due [and thereafter continues to pay or

tender in Court Regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit

is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the

Court].
              [and there after,-
       (i) Continues to pay or tender in Court such rent and permitted

increases till the suit is finally decided; and
       (ii) pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court.
      (4) …….
Explanation.- In any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of

standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act the tenant

shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the

expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section

(2) he makes an application to the Court under sub-section (3) of section

11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases

specified in the order made by the Court.
Explanation I.- In any case where there is a dispute as to the amount of

standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under this Act, the tenant

shall be deemed to be ready and willing to pay such amount if, before the

expiry of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section

(2), he makes an application to the Court under sub-section (3) of section

11 and thereafter pays or tenders the amount of rent or permitted increases

specified in the order made by the Court.”
12. So far as the first ground of eviction of arrears of rent is

concerned, it is an admitted case that the tenant Manilal was in arrears of

rent from 06.07.1974 to 05.05.1976 amounting to Rs.660/- and proper notice

(Ex.31) was issued asking him to vacate premises in case he fails to make

good the arrears of rent. Though the tenant Manilal received the said

notice, no reply was sent there to; nor the dispute of standard rent was

raised. It is only in the written statement filed by him, the dispute was

raised for the first time as to the standard rent. Notably, the tenant

Manilal had never applied for fixation of the standard rent earlier nor

within one month of the service of notice had he applied for fixation of

the standard rent. As noted earlier, the tenant Manilal did not even send

reply notice disputing the standard rent.
13. According to the appellant-landlord, the property is situated on main

road and Gajrawadi bus stand is also nearby and hence, the standard rent of

the demised property cannot be less than Rs.30/- per month. It is also

pertinent to note that at relevant point of time, first floor of the

tenanted premises was let out to another tenant namely Chimanlal Jaiswal

who was using the same for residence and had been paying rent of Rs.30/-

per month. Likewise, the second floor was let out to one tenant named

Rikhavchand who was also using it as residence and the ground floor was let

out for hair cutting salon on the rent of Rs.30/- per month. Upon

consideration of evidence, the trial court recorded that rent of Rs.30/-

per month for the salon in the ground floor cannot be said to be excessive.

 There is no bona fide in the dispute raised by the tenant as to the

standard rent. From the evidence of appellant-landlord admittedly there was

default in payment of rent for more than six months and the tenant was

liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act.

  1. The First Appellate Court took the view that in Ex.31 Notice,

appellant-plaintiff had demanded not only the rent but also other local

taxes with permitted increases and it was not a case of monthly tenancy;

but the rent was payable at the end of every year and therefore, the case

of the appellant-plaintiff was covered under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay

Rent Control Act and not covered under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. In our

view, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court did not properly

appreciate the evidence of appellant-plaintiff and other evidence adduced

by the parties.
15. The appellant-landlord has asserted that the tenancy was a monthly

tenancy, where rent of Rs.30/- was due on 6th day of each month and rental

receipt was issued accordingly. To substantiate his evidence, the appellant

has produced Ex.27 which is the receipt No.184. Ex.27 is a receipt for

payment of rent from 06.03.1974 to 05.04.1974. So far as the rent receipt

is concerned, the defendant No.1/2 Dahyabhai Manilal Valand son of the

tenant Manilal admitted the signature of his father on the receipt Ex.27.

After the said payment of rent, defendant paid an amount of Rs.100/- as

rent in lieu of which three other similar receipts were prepared on

14.08.1974 and in this manner rent upto 05.07.1974 was paid, Rs.10/- being

remainder in credit of the defendant. According to appellant-landlord, the

respondent did not come to receive those three receipts and so the counter-

foils were not signed by him. The rent was due from 06.07.1974 to

05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/- for twenty two months and Rs.10/- was

already in credit of the defendant, thus an amount of Rs.650/- was due.

Notice (Ex.31) was sent by the appellant’s advocate that the arrears of

rent is Rs.650/- which the defendant had received by Ex.4/2. As already

noted, the defendant Manilal had neither sent reply to the said notice nor

disputed the standard rent. By producing Ex.27 receipt and other receipts,

the appellant-landlord has established that the tenancy was a ‘monthly

tenancy’.
16. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our

attention to the notice issued by the Defendant

No. 1/2-Dahyalal Manilal Valand dated 27.01.2004, wherein it is clearly

stated that the tenancy is a ‘monthly tenancy’ at a monthly rent of Rs.30/-

. As pointed out by the trial court, the defendants deposited the amount

after a lapse of one month after the receipt of notice. Resultantly, the

respondent-defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are liable to be evicted on the ground

of default in payment of rent. The First Appellate Court and the High Court

erred in ignoring the material evidence that the tenancy was a monthly

tenancy and that the case would fall under Section 12(3)(a). The finding

of the High Court as also of the First Appellate Court that the present

tenancy is covered under Section 12(3)(b) is liable to be set aside and the

order of eviction passed by the trial court on the ground of default in

payment of rent is to be restored.
17. Next question falling for consideration is, after the death of

Manilal, whether defendant’s heirs-defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are entitled

to continue in the shop. Appellant-landlord pleaded that none of the

Manilal’s sons were doing business of hair cutting alongwith the defendant

Manilal and under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, the

defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are not entitled to continue in tenancy after the

death of deceased-tenant Manilal. Section 5(11)(c) reads as under:-

(11) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable

for any premises and includes-

       (a) xxx

       (b) xxx
 (c) (i) any member of the tenant’s family residing with him at the time

of his death as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court;
(ii) in relation to premises let for business, trade or storage, any member

of the tenant’s family carrying on business, trade or storage with the

tenant in the said premises at the time of the death of the tenant as may

continue, after his death, to carry on the business, trade or storage, as

the case may be, in the said premises and as may be decided in default of

agreement by the Court.
18. It is brought on record that defendant No.1/2 Dahyabhai was serving

in Alembic Glass Works as full time worker and, to prove the same Ex.39

Service Card was produced which shows that Dahyabhai was a full time worker

and he never carried on business of Barber alongwith the original tenant

Manilal. Though in his evidence, defendant No.1/2 Dahyabhai has stated

that he was staying in the shop and was doing barber work alongwith his

father nothing was produced to prove the same. As rightly pointed out by

the trial court, no evidence was produced to show that defendant No.1/2

Dahyabhai had worked alongwith his father or that he had cut hair of even a

single person in Baroda in the tenanted shop premises.
19. So far as the other son Bhogilal-defendant No.1/3 is concerned, it is

brought on record that he was running a separate barber shop in Navjivan

Society and to prove the same, appellant-landlord has produced photographs

Exs.49-50 which showed that Bhogilal was actually working in his separate

shop in Navjivan Society while his father Manilal was alive. In this

regard, it is relevant to refer to the observation of the trial court that

to his identity and his photographs, how defendant No.1/3 came to the court

with his head completely shaven and moustache removed to disguise himself

as a different person from the photographs Exs.49, 50 and 51. Nothing was

brought on record to show that defendant Nos.1/3 had been doing the

business with his father at any point of time. Further, the appellant-

landlord has also produced Exs.43 and 44 photographs to show that there was

only one chair for the customers in the shop and that neither defendant

No.1/2 nor defendant No.1/3 were present in the shop to carry on the

business alongwith tenant-Manilal thereafter. The First Appellate Court

and the High Court failed to appreciate that the defendant No.1/2 was a

full time worker in Alembic Glass works and defendant No. 1/3 was carrying

on his business separately. The findings of the trial court that the

defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are not entitled to the benefit of Section

5(11)(c), is well reasoned and based on evidence and the same is to be

restored.
20. So far as the sub-letting is concerned, the defendant No.1/2 stated

that the second defendant Somabhai Dahyabhai was engaged as their worker

and that he was being paid 50% of the charges as worker and as still

Somabhai did not find it profitable and, he had left the job. The fact

that a stranger was engaged in the shop and he was being paid 50% labour

charges, as rightly observed by the trial court that it must have been

either a case of partnership or of sub-letting. That apart, second

defendant Somabhai has not been examined to substantiate the version of the

defendants that he was engaged by the defendants as their worker. The

findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court on sub-letting is

accordingly reversed, restoring the findings of the trial court that the

defendants are liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting also.
21. The findings and the reasonings recorded by the High Court are not

based on evidence, cannot be sustained. As rightly held by the trial

court, the respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on three grounds:-

(i) default in payment of rent; (ii) defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 not being

entitled to the benefit of Section 5(11)(c); and (iii) sub-letting. It is

unfortunate that the appellant-landlord is litigating for more than four

decades to get back possession of his own premises and, therefore, the

respondent-tenants are directed to handover vacant possession of the

premises immediately.
22. The impugned judgement of the High Court is set aside and this appeal

is allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes

Court, Vadodara is restored. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 or other person,

if any, inducted by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 are directed to handover

vacant possession within two months from the date of this judgment, failing

which the respondents shall be liable for contempt of this court apart from

other remedies available in law. No costs.

                                                             ………………………….J.

                                                  [KURIAN JOSEPH]

                                                              .………………………..J.

                                              [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi;

April 12, 2017

Advertisements

Dead Techie Madhukar Reddy’s wife is filing 498a on HIS (dead man’s) parents !! 

NEVER EVER think of #suicide if you are facing #matrimonial #problems !! Your wife can easily file 498a case on your parents and relatives AFTER your death !! An #Indian techie committed suicide at the United States. #Madhukar #Reddy’s wife is now filing 498a on the dead man’s parents and other relatives. Just think of your mom, dad, sister before you commit any do anything stupid.


Blamed for techie’s death in US, wife tries to kill self

HYDERABAD: Upset over her husband’s parents and relatives blaming her for his death, G Swathi, wife of Madhukar Reddy Guduru, attempted suicide by drinking toilet cleaner at her parents’ home in Saroornagar early Friday morning. Madhukar, a techie wotking in the US, was found hanging in his home in Seattle on April 4. 
According to sources, after her parents discovered that she had consumed toilet cleaning liquid, Swathi was immediately shifted to a hospital in Kothapet, where she is reported to be stable. 
In her statement to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Indira Devi, Swathi alleged “harassment from her in-laws” as the reason behind the suicide attempt. 
“The victim told the magistrate that her in-laws have been subjecting her to mental harassment and were threatening her against talking to the media. She also said that they were threatening her to not claim Madhukar’s properties and were maligning her character by making false allegations,” said G Guru Raghavendra, inspector at Chaitanyapuri police station. 
“Swathi gave a complaint to the police against her in-laws, Suguna, Balreddy, Kalpana and Ravinder Reddy of Bhongir. We will soon register a case under Section 498A of the IPC against the accused,” the inspector said. 

http://m.timesofindia.com/city/hyderabad/blamed-for-techies-death-in-us-wife-tries-to-kill-self/articleshow/58188323.cms?utm_source=toimobile&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=referral

#Yogi ji cancelled #school holidays. Will he cancel #unnecessary #court #holidays ? Speed up courts ?

48-YO Bengaluru Woman Arrested For Killing Her Husband With The Help Of Five Hitmen – Indiatimes.com

48-YO Bengaluru Woman Arrested For Killing Her Husband With The Help Of Five Hitmen
INDIATIMES | APRIL 13, 2017

Bengaluru Police have arrested five people in connection with the murder of G Kumar, a financier, who was hacked to death last Thursday. Police said one of the arrested is Doreen Kumar, the wife of the financier, who is said to be the mastermind behind the crime.

The other four men planned and executed the murder, while one of the accused is still on the run. According to Police, 48-year-old Doreen had agreed to pay Rs 30 lakh to get her husband killed.

She reportedly was fed up with Kumar, who used to regularly assault her and her daughter.

Kumar, who was a moneylender allegedly waived off loans of women defaulters in exchange of sexual favours, a move which infuriated Doreen. She had plotted the murder almost three months ago with the help of Sridhar, who had borrowed Rs 5 lakhs from Kumar, with a promise to write off his loan.

“Kumar had given a loan of Rs 5 lakh to one Sridhar. When Doreen became friends with Sridhar, she discussed her husband’s relationships with him. She also sought his help to get Kumar killed. She agreed to waive off his loan and also decided to give a supari of Rs 30 lakh. She had also given Rs 2 lakh in advance,” a police officer said.

Sridhar who had a criminal past arranged the hitmen, whom Doreen paid Rs 2 lakhs in advance.

Bengaluru

According to police, on the day of the murder, two women associates of the accused called Kumar on the pretext of a loan.

While Kumar was on his way, the accused attacked him and hacked him to death. Doreen who had earlier registered a police complaint about the death of her husband confessed to her role in the murder during detailed questioning.

http://m.indiatimes.com/news/india/48-yo-bengaluru-woman-arrested-for-killing-her-husband-with-the-help-of-five-hitmen-275542.html

Don’t keep asking me what if this happened to my sister💡 ?? If my sister filed #FakeCases I would be the first to fight 🖐🏾against her

Don’t keep asking me what if this happened to your sister💡 ?? If my sister filed #FakeCases I would be the first to fight 🖐🏾against her. By the way when my X Filed 498a on us, my mother, sister all went thru hell. So men, families, sisters are All In shit because of #Fake498a #FakeDV #FakeRape etc. Men don’t live in an island, we all suffer together. We are all in this together, Just as the lakhs of my Indian elders, brothers and sisters do 😞😞