Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the defendants (applicants) challenging the judgment and order dated 1 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Bench had allowed Appeal No. 100 of 2017 filed by the plaintiffs-landlords, setting aside the Trial Court's dismissal of R.A.E. Suit No. 1303/1949 of 2009. The suit premises are located in Daji Pandurang Bhavan, Mumbai. The original tenant was Hari Singh Ujjagar Singh, who died in 1986. The first defendant, Babarjit Singh, claimed to be the adopted son of Hari Singh and resided in the premises along with other defendants (Kuldeep Kaur and her children). The plaintiffs filed the suit for possession on the ground of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, alleging that Babarjit Singh had sublet the premises to the other defendants after leaving Mumbai permanently. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the other defendants were family members of Babarjit Singh and that there was no subletting. The Appellate Bench reversed this decision, finding that Babarjit Singh was not the adopted son of Hari Singh (as held in earlier proceedings) and that he had left Mumbai, thereby subletting the premises to the other defendants. The Appellate Bench decreed the suit, ordering possession and an inquiry into mesne profits. The defendants filed the present revision. The High Court, after considering submissions, upheld the Appellate Bench's decision, finding no perversity or error of law. The court noted that the earlier judgment in Appeal No. 218 of 2003, which held that Babarjit Singh was not the adopted son, did not bar the present proceedings as the issue of subletting was distinct. The court also held that the Appellate Bench correctly found that the other defendants were not family members and that there was subletting. The revision was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 16(1)(e) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The Appellate Bench held that the tenant had sublet the suit premises to persons who were not his family members, as the tenant had left Mumbai permanently and the other defendants were in exclusive possession. The court found that the earlier judgment in Appeal No. 218 of 2003, which held that the tenant was not the adopted son of the original tenant, did not bar the present proceedings as the issue of subletting was distinct. (Paras 1-6)
B) Rent Control - Family Member - Definition - The court considered whether the defendants residing in the suit premises were family members of the tenant. The Appellate Bench held that since the tenant was not the adopted son of the original tenant, the other defendants could not be considered his family members. The court also noted that the tenant had not resided in the premises after his transfer. (Paras 5-6)
C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Issue Estoppel - The court examined whether the findings in the earlier suit (R.A.E. Suit No. 1714/5439 of 1987) and Appeal No. 218 of 2003 operated as res judicata. The court held that the earlier proceedings dealt with different issues (adoption and lodgers) and did not preclude the present suit based on subletting. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit and in holding that the defendants had sublet the suit premises to persons who were not family members, thereby terminating the tenancy under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 1 November 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 100 of 2017 is upheld. The tenancy of the defendants over the suit premises is terminated on the ground of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants are directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. The inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to be conducted from the date of the decree till actual delivery of possession.
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 52
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 272 OF 2024
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Mehta and Mr. Nilesh Pandey i/b Vaibhav Mehta & Associates, for the Applicants. Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Amey Sawant, Ms. Neha Zanje, G. Saldanha, Mr. Pratik Sabrad and Ms. Payal Vardhan, for the Respondents.
Babarjit Singh Hari Singh Ors.
Manorama Vishwanath Surve Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the Appellate Bench's decree of possession on ground of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (defendants) sought to set aside the Appellate Bench's judgment and order dated 1 November 2023 which decreed the suit for possession and directed an inquiry into mesne profits.
Filing Reason
The applicants challenged the Appellate Bench's finding that they had sublet the suit premises to persons who were not family members, and that the tenancy was terminated.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Small Causes Court) dismissed the suit on 9 October 2015, holding that the other defendants were family members. The Appellate Bench reversed this on 1 November 2023, decreeing the suit. Earlier, in R.A.E. Suit No. 1714/5439 of 1987 and Appeal No. 218 of 2003, it was held that Babarjit Singh was not the adopted son of Hari Singh but was a family member entitled to tenancy rights.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Bench erred in holding that the defendants had sublet the suit premises under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the findings in the earlier proceedings (Appeal No. 218 of 2003) operated as res judicata or issue estoppel barring the present suit.
Whether the defendants residing in the suit premises were family members of the tenant.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the Appellate Bench erred in reversing the Trial Court's decision and that the finding that Babarjit Singh was the adopted son was perverse and contrary to the earlier judgment in Appeal No. 218 of 2003.
The applicants contended that the other defendants were family members and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove subletting.
The applicants relied on Baldev Sahai Bangia v. R.C. Bhasin, Vasant Mahadev Pandit v. Zaibunnisa Abdul Sattar, and Surendra M. Wagh v. Manohar Krishna Kale to support their arguments on family member definition and subletting.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellate Bench correctly found that the tenant had sublet the suit premises to persons who were not his family members, as the tenant had left Mumbai permanently and the other defendants were in exclusive possession. The earlier judgment in Appeal No. 218 of 2003, which held that the tenant was not the adopted son of the original tenant, did not bar the present proceedings as the issue of subletting was distinct and not previously adjudicated. The word 'family' in rent control legislation must be given a wider meaning, but in this case, the other defendants were not family members of the tenant.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellate Bench has decreed the suit directing that tenancy of the Applicants/Defendants over the suit premises is terminated on the ground of subletting under Section 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The Appellate Bench held that Defendant No.1 is the adopted son of original tenant-Hari Singh and that therefore Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 cannot become his family members.
Mr. Gorwadkar would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Baldev Sahai Bangia Versus R.C. Bhasin in support of his contention that the word ‘family’ needs to be given a wider meaning so as to include all members or descendants from common ancestors.
Procedural History
The original tenant Hari Singh died in 1986. Earlier suits (R.A.E. Suit No. 411 of 1981 and R.A.E. Suit No. 1714/5439 of 1987) were filed by the landlords, with the latter being dismissed and the appeal (Appeal No. 218 of 2003) being dismissed, holding that Babarjit Singh was a family member entitled to tenancy rights. On 1 July 2009, the plaintiffs issued a notice to Babarjit Singh alleging subletting and arrears. On 2 December 2009, the plaintiffs filed R.A.E. Suit No. 1303/1949 of 2009 for possession on ground of subletting. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 9 October 2015. The plaintiffs appealed (Appeal No. 100 of 2017), and the Appellate Bench allowed the appeal on 1 November 2023, decreeing the suit. The defendants filed the present Civil Revision Application challenging that decree.
