Case Note & Summary
The revision applicant, Vishnu Tayappa Kamble, challenged an order of the Competent Authority at Pune allowing Application No. 47 of 1996 under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The landlord, Abdul Rashid Abdul Hakim Ansari, sought possession of Flat No. L-50/1156, admeasuring 21.08 sq.mtrs., on the ground that the occupant was a licensee since 1989 on an oral agreement for 11 months, which had expired. The occupant claimed he was a tenant since 1986 paying Rs.400/- per month and had paid a deposit of Rs.3000/-. The Competent Authority found the occupant to be a licensee and ordered eviction. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence including the notice dated 1/8/1996 (Exh.16) and the occupant's written statement. The court noted that the occupant failed to produce any documentary evidence of tenancy, such as rent receipts, and his claim of tenancy was not supported by the witness Mr. Sapkal. The court held that the Competent Authority correctly concluded that the occupant was a licensee and not a tenant. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Licence vs. Tenancy - Section 13A(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Eviction of Licensee - The landlord filed an application under Section 13A(2) for eviction of the occupant on the ground that the licence period had expired. The occupant claimed he was a tenant. The Competent Authority allowed the application. The High Court held that the occupant failed to prove tenancy and the landlord's case of licence was accepted. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the occupant was a licensee or a tenant, and whether the Competent Authority could order eviction under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the Competent Authority. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Licence vs. Tenancy
- Section 13A(2) Bombay Rent Act
- Eviction of Licensee
- Burden of Proof on Occupant to Show Tenancy
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 18
Civil Revision Application No. 216 of 1997
Mr. S.S. Hardikar for the applicant, Mr. Pramod J. Pawar for respondent
Shri Vishnu Tayappa Kamble
Abdul Rashid Abdul Hakim Ansari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against order of Competent Authority allowing eviction under Section 13A(2) of Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
The revision applicant (occupant) sought to set aside the eviction order passed by the Competent Authority.
Filing Reason
The landlord filed an application under Section 13A(2) for eviction on the ground that the licence period had expired and the occupant failed to vacate.
Previous Decisions
The Competent Authority at Pune allowed Application No. 47 of 1996 and ordered eviction of the occupant.
Issues
Whether the occupant was a licensee or a tenant.
Whether the Competent Authority correctly applied Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The landlord argued that the occupant was a licensee since 1989 on an oral agreement for 11 months, which expired, and the occupant failed to vacate.
The occupant argued that he was a tenant since 1986 paying monthly rent of Rs.400/- and had paid a deposit of Rs.3000/-, and could not be evicted under Section 13A(2).
Ratio Decidendi
The occupant failed to prove tenancy; the landlord's case of licence was accepted. Under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, a licensee whose licence has expired can be evicted by the Competent Authority.
Judgment Excerpts
The revision applicant has assailed the order passed by the Competent Authority at Pune allowing the Application No.47 of 1996 filed under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
The said application was filed on the ground that the period of licence had expired and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to the possession of the suit premises.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Application No. 47 of 1996 before the Competent Authority at Pune under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Competent Authority allowed the application and ordered eviction. The occupant filed Civil Revision Application No. 216 of 1997 in the Bombay High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947: 13A(2)
