Case Note & Summary
The respondent-landlord filed Regular Civil Appeal No.95/1991 seeking eviction of the tenant from premises on several grounds, including the ground under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act) that the landlord required the premises for demolition and erection of a new building. The trial court passed a decree in favor of the landlord on that ground. The tenant appealed to the District Court in Civil Appeal No.137 of 2000, which was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree. The tenant then filed a Civil Revision Application in the Bombay High Court. The tenant's counsel argued that the landlord had not complied with the mandatory procedure under Sections 13(3A) and (3B) of the Rent Act, which require that before a decree for eviction on the ground under Section 13(1)(hh) can be passed, the landlord must produce a certificate from a Tribunal constituted under sub-section (3B) and give an undertaking regarding the timeline for demolition and reconstruction, including that the new building will contain at least twice the number of residential tenements and floor area. The landlord's counsel could not point to any record showing compliance. The High Court observed that the courts below had not considered this aspect and that the procedure had not been followed. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the eviction decree, and ordered no costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Demolition and Reconstruction - Mandatory Procedure - Section 13(1)(hh), 13(3A), 13(3B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on ground of demolition and reconstruction but did not produce a certificate from the Tribunal under Section 13(3B) nor file an undertaking as required under Section 13(3A). The High Court held that compliance with these procedural requirements is mandatory and without them, no decree for eviction can be passed under Section 13(1)(hh). The decree was set aside. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 can be sustained when the landlord failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Sections 13(3A) and (3B) requiring a certificate from the Tribunal and an undertaking.
Final Decision
The Revision Application is allowed. The decree passed by the courts below for eviction under Section 13(1)(hh) is set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Eviction under Section 13(1)(hh) of Bombay Rent Act requires prior certificate from Tribunal under Section 13(3B) and undertaking as per Section 13(3A)
- non-compliance renders decree invalid
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 44
Civil Revision Application No. 503 of 2007
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for petitioner, Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for respondent
Ambadas alias Baban Maruti Kumbhar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against concurrent decrees of eviction passed by trial court and appellate court under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
The tenant (revision applicant) sought setting aside of the eviction decree on the ground that the landlord had not complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 13(3A) and (3B) of the Rent Act.
Filing Reason
The landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground that he required the premises for demolition and erection of a new building. The tenant challenged the decree on the ground that the landlord failed to obtain a certificate from the Tribunal and file an undertaking as required by law.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed a decree in favor of the landlord under Section 13(1)(hh). The tenant's appeal (Civil Appeal No.137 of 2000) was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Issues
Whether the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(hh) of the Bombay Rent Act can be sustained when the landlord failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under Sections 13(3A) and (3B) requiring a certificate from the Tribunal and an undertaking.
Submissions/Arguments
The tenant argued that the landlord did not plead or produce any document showing that permission from the Tribunal was obtained before filing the suit under Section 13(1)(hh), nor was an undertaking as required under Section 13(3A) filed before the court.
The landlord's counsel could not point to any record showing that such procedure was followed.
Ratio Decidendi
Compliance with the procedure under Sections 13(3A) and (3B) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 is mandatory for passing a decree for eviction on the ground under Section 13(1)(hh). Without the landlord producing a certificate from the Tribunal and giving an undertaking as required, no decree for eviction can be passed.
Judgment Excerpts
Sub-section (3A) requires that no decree for eviction shall be passed on the ground specified in clause (hh) of sub-section (1), unless the landlord produces at the time of the institution of the suit, a certificate granted by the Tribunal under sub-section (3B) and gives an undertaking...
For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision Application is allowed and the decree passed by the Courts below for eviction under Section 13(1)(hh) is hereby set aside.
Procedural History
The respondent-landlord filed Regular Civil Appeal No.95/1991 for eviction. The trial court passed a decree in favor of the landlord under Section 13(1)(hh). The tenant appealed to the District Court in Civil Appeal No.137 of 2000, which was dismissed. The tenant then filed Civil Revision Application No.503 of 2007 in the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(hh), 13(3A), 13(3B), 17B, 17C
