Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Brigedier Shankarrao Damaji Parab, is the landlord of a residential flat in Pune. He had given the premises to the respondent, Dr. Narayan Dattatraya Bagade, a medical practitioner, on leave and license basis by an agreement dated 22/9/1986. The license period expired on 30/9/1989, but the respondent did not vacate. The landlord filed an application under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) before the Competent Authority seeking possession. The respondent opposed the application on two grounds: first, that the premises were given for a composite purpose of residence and medical consultancy practice, and second, that Section 13A(2) was brought into force with effect from 1/10/1987, after the agreement was executed, and thus the provision could not apply retrospectively. The Competent Authority upheld the second objection and dismissed the application as untenable. The landlord challenged this order in Civil Revision Application No. 456 of 1990, which was allowed by the High Court, and the matter was remanded. However, the Competent Authority again dismissed the application, leading to the present revision. The High Court examined the issue of retrospectivity and held that Section 13A(2) applies to license agreements executed before its commencement if the license period expires after the provision came into force, as the cause of action arises on expiry of the license period. Regarding the composite purpose objection, the Court noted that the Competent Authority had not considered the nature of possession and whether the premises were primarily used for residence. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Competent Authority to decide the application afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of possession.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Licensee Eviction - Section 13A(2) Bombay Rent Act - Retrospective Operation - The provision applies to license agreements executed before its commencement if the license period expires after the provision came into force, as the cause of action arises on expiry of license period. Held that the Competent Authority erred in holding the application untenable on ground of non-retrospectivity (Paras 2-4). B) Rent Control - License for Composite Purpose - Section 13A(2) Bombay Rent Act - Maintainability - A license for residence and professional practice does not bar an application under Section 13A(2) if the premises are primarily used for residence. The Competent Authority must examine the nature of possession and not merely the agreement terms. Held that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration on this aspect (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is maintainable when the license agreement was executed before the provision came into force but the license period expired after its commencement, and whether a license for composite purpose of residence and professional practice falls within the ambit of Section 13A(2).
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the impugned order of the Competent Authority, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Competent Authority was directed to decide the application afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the nature of possession, particularly whether the premises were used for residence or composite purpose.
Law Points
- Section 13A(2) of Bombay Rent Act applies to license agreements executed before its commencement if the license period expires after the provision came into force
- License for composite purpose of residence and professional practice does not bar application under Section 13A(2) if the primary purpose is residence
- Competent Authority must consider the nature of possession and not merely the agreement terms
