Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for possession filed by the respondent (Jeroo Porus Karai) against the appellants (Khadi & Village Industries Commission and others) in respect of agricultural land and buildings in village Agar, Dahanu. The respondent claimed that her uncle had executed a lease deed on 1st April 1959 in favor of the appellants, and that the appellants had carried out unauthorized constructions. The respondent specifically averred in the plaint that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 were not applicable to village Agar. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent failed to prove that the Rent Act did not apply. The lower appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit, directing the appellants to vacate. The appellants filed a second appeal in the High Court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the respondent had discharged the burden of proving that the Rent Act was not applicable. The High Court held that the burden was on the respondent to plead and prove non-applicability, and she failed to do so. The plaint merely stated the Act was not applicable without any evidence. Consequently, the suit was not maintainable without a notice under Section 12 of the Rent Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Applicability of Rent Act - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must plead and prove that the premises are not governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, especially when the defendant claims protection under the Act. The court held that the respondent failed to discharge this burden, as the plaint merely stated that the Act was not applicable without any supporting evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Notice under Section 12 - Requirement - Where the Rent Act applies, a suit for possession without a valid notice under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 is not maintainable. The court found that the respondent did not issue any such notice, and the trial court's dismissal was correct. (Paras 1-10) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law regarding the burden of proof of non-applicability of the Rent Act. The court answered the question in favor of the appellants, holding that the lower appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's findings. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent/plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the suit premises in village Agar, and consequently, whether the suit for possession was maintainable without a notice under Section 12 of the Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and restored the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on plaintiff to show Rent Act non-applicability
- Rent Act applies to premises within its territorial limits unless specifically excluded
- Plaintiff must plead and prove that premises are not covered by Rent Act
