Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of suit premises, challenged an order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, allowing the respondent landlord's application under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act for inspection of the suit premises along with its representatives, architect, and surveyors for taking measurements. The landlord had filed R.A.E. Suit No.150/208 of 2010 seeking vacant possession under Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. Under Section 16(6)(d), the landlord must give an undertaking that the new building will include premises for each tenant with carpet area equivalent to the area in his occupation, subject to a 5% variation. The landlord claimed the area in occupation of petitioner no.1 was 200 sq.ft. and petitioner no.2 was 730 sq.ft., while the tenants claimed 203.50 sq.ft. and 1565 sq.ft. respectively. Before adducing examination-in-chief, the landlord filed the application for inspection to ascertain the exact area. The Small Causes Court allowed the application. The tenants filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court held that Section 28 of the Rent Act empowers the Court to order inspection of the suit premises for the purpose of proper adjudication of the dispute. The inspection was necessary to determine the exact area in the tenants' occupation, which was a material fact for the landlord's undertaking under Section 16(6)(d). The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Inspection of Premises - Section 28 Maharashtra Rent Act - Landlord's Application for Measurement - Landlord filed suit for possession under Section 16(1)(i) for demolition and reconstruction - Landlord sought inspection to ascertain exact area in tenant's occupation for undertaking under Section 16(6)(d) - Court allowed application - Held that Section 28 empowers Court to order inspection for proper adjudication of dispute, and such inspection is necessary to determine area for reconstruction undertaking (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court was justified in allowing the landlord's application under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act for inspection and measurement of the suit premises before adducing evidence in a suit for possession under Section 16(1)(i).
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Small Causes Court allowing the landlord's application for inspection under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act.
Law Points
- Section 28 of Maharashtra Rent Act confers power on Court to order inspection of premises
- Section 16(1)(i) allows recovery of possession for demolition and reconstruction
- Section 16(6)(d) requires landlord to give undertaking regarding area of new premises
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 131
Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2013
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/b Mr. Kunal Bhange, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajiv Singh and Mr. Vinayak S Vengurlekar i/b M/s Craford Bayley & Co., Advocates for the respondent
Suresh Manoharlal Jumani and Shobha Jumani
Aasia Management & Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order allowing inspection of suit premises under Section 28 of Maharashtra Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners/tenants sought to quash the order of the Small Causes Court allowing the landlord's application for inspection and measurement of the suit premises.
Filing Reason
The Small Causes Court allowed the landlord's application under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act for inspection of the suit premises for taking measurements, which the tenants challenged.
Previous Decisions
The Judge, Small Causes Court, allowed the application of the plaintiff seeking inspection of the suit premises along with its representatives/architect/surveyors for taking measurements.
Issues
Whether the Small Causes Court was justified in allowing the landlord's application under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act for inspection and measurement of the suit premises before adducing evidence in a suit for possession under Section 16(1)(i).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners/tenants argued that the inspection was not necessary and that the area claimed by them was correct.
Respondent/landlord contended that inspection was necessary to ascertain the exact area in occupation of the tenants for the purpose of giving undertaking under Section 16(6)(d).
Ratio Decidendi
Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act empowers the Court to order inspection of the suit premises for proper adjudication of the dispute. In a suit for possession under Section 16(1)(i) for demolition and reconstruction, the landlord is required to give an undertaking under Section 16(6)(d) regarding the area of new premises. Inspection to ascertain the exact area in the tenant's occupation is necessary for such undertaking and for just decision of the case.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners/defendants impugn the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, allowing the application of the plaintiff seeking inspection of the suit premises along with its representatives/Architect/surveyors for taking measurements, filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Act.
Before adducing the examination-in-chief, the plaintiff filed the instant application invoking section 28 of the Rent Act of 1999 seeking inspection of the suit premises along with its representatives for carrying out measurements. The said application is allowed.
Procedural History
The respondent/plaintiff filed R.A.E. Suit No.150/208 of 2010 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, seeking possession under Section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Before adducing evidence, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 28 of the Rent Act for inspection and measurement of the suit premises. The Small Causes Court allowed the application. The petitioners/defendants filed the present writ petition challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(i), Section 16(6)(d), Section 28
