Case Note & Summary
The original plaintiff, Dasrao Ramrao Bokil (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 10/1976) before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Latur, against the original defendant, Ganpat Valhoba Ghisadi (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), for possession of 1/4th vacant plot bearing No. 27/42 at Latur and for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had taken the vacant plot on rent at the time of Diwali 1968 on a monthly rent of Rs. 17/- for a period of one year, i.e., up to Diwali 1969, under an oral agreement. The defendant continued in possession after the expiry of the lease but was irregular in payment of rent. The plaintiff issued a notice dated 10.12.1973 demanding arrears of rent of Rs. 350/- and terminating the tenancy. Despite service, the defendant did not pay. The trial court decreed the suit for possession and arrears of rent. The defendant appealed to the District Court, which reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the vacant plot was 'premises' under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and that the tenancy was from month to month, requiring a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plaintiff filed a second appeal in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a vacant plot is not 'premises' under the Rent Act, and the lease was for a fixed term, not month to month. The court restored the trial court's decree for possession and arrears of rent.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Definition of Premises - Vacant Plot - The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The court considered whether a vacant plot of land falls within the definition of 'premises' under the Act. Held that a vacant plot is not a 'premises' as defined, and therefore the Act does not apply. The tenant's possession after expiry of the lease is that of a trespasser, and the plaintiff is entitled to possession. (Paras 4-6) B) Lease - Oral Lease - Tenancy for Fixed Term - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 - The lease was oral for one year from Diwali 1968 to Diwali 1969. After expiry, the tenant continued in possession. The court held that the tenancy was for a fixed term and not from month to month, so Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply. The tenant's holding over does not create a monthly tenancy. (Paras 4-6) C) Rent Recovery - Arrears of Rent - Notice - The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent of Rs. 350/- and issued notice dated 10.12.1973 demanding payment and terminating tenancy. The court held that the notice was valid and the defendant was liable to pay arrears. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a vacant plot of land is a 'premises' under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession and arrears of rent.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the District Court set aside. Decree of the trial court for possession and arrears of rent restored.
Law Points
- Vacant plot not a 'premises' under Rent Act
- Oral lease for one year
- Tenant holding over not protected
- Notice terminating tenancy valid
- Suit for possession maintainable
