Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh Silk Mills & Ors., were tenants of premises that were the subject of an eviction suit filed in September 1979 by the original landlord under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, on the ground of default in payment of rent since 1st December 1978. During the pendency of the suit, the property was transferred to the respondent, Sheetal D. Kamdar, by a Deed of Conveyance dated 29th March 1990. The deed specifically assigned to the respondent the benefit of the pending eviction suit and authorized her to pursue the claims. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners challenged the decree by way of a writ petition, arguing that the respondent, as a purchaser, could not seek eviction without issuing a fresh notice under the Rent Act. The High Court held that the respondent, as an assignee of the landlord's interest during the pendency of the suit, was entitled to the benefit of the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the deed of conveyance clearly assigned the benefit of the pending suits, including the eviction suit, to the respondent. The court further held that the requirement of a valid notice under Section 12(3)(a) was satisfied by the notice already given by the original landlord, and no fresh notice was required from the respondent. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 10 - Transfer of Interest Pending Suit - Assignment of Benefit of Suit - The purchaser of immovable property during the pendency of a suit is entitled to the benefit of the suit and can continue the proceedings without a fresh notice, provided the assignment is clear and the tenant is aware of the transfer. The court held that the respondent, as assignee of the landlord's rights, could pursue the eviction suit. (Paras 2-4) B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 12(3)(a) - Eviction on Ground of Default - Notice of Demand - The requirement of a valid notice under Section 12(3)(a) is a condition precedent for a decree of eviction. The court held that the respondent, having stepped into the shoes of the landlord, was entitled to rely on the notice already given by the original landlord, and no fresh notice was required. (Paras 5-6) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 10 - Assignment of Benefit of Suit - Rights of Assignee - The assignee of a landlord's interest in a pending eviction suit can continue the suit and obtain a decree for eviction if the tenant is in default. The court held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the pending suit and could seek eviction. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, as a purchaser of the property during the pendency of an eviction suit, is entitled to the benefit of the suit and can seek eviction without issuing a fresh notice under the Bombay Rent Act, and whether the trial court and appellate court erred in passing a decree for eviction against the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Transfer of property pending suit
- assignment of benefit of suit
- Order 22 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- eviction decree
- notice to tenant
- rights of assignee
