Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellants, who are owners of a property in Mapusa, Goa, against the judgment of the first appellate court. The appellants had leased a shop to Sakharam Bicaro Naik on 08.12.1983. After Sakharam's death, the original defendant Chandrakant Bicaro Naik started occupying the shop without the appellants' consent. The appellants served a notice on 19.06.2001 calling upon him to vacate, but Chandrakant claimed he was the tenant and that licenses were transferred in his name. The appellants filed a suit for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the respondents had inherited the tenancy rights and that the tenancy was commercial. The appellants challenged this in second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the first appellate court erred in holding that the respondents inherited tenancy rights without proper pleadings, and (2) whether the court misdirected itself in concluding commercial tenancy based on purpose of letting rather than user. The court heard arguments from both sides. The judgment is oral and was delivered on 21.02.2014. The court found that the first appellate court had erred on both counts. The respondents had not pleaded facts indicating inheritance of tenancy, and the determination of commercial tenancy should be based on actual user, not the purpose of letting. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law: (i) whether the first appellate court erred in holding that the respondents inherited tenancy rights without pleadings indicating inheritance, and (ii) whether the court misdirected itself in concluding commercial tenancy based on purpose of letting rather than user. (Paras 2) B) Tenancy Law - Inheritance of Tenancy - Pleadings - The court held that the respondents failed to plead facts indicating inheritance of tenancy rights from deceased tenant Sakharam Bhikaro Naik, and thus the first appellate court's conclusion was erroneous. (Paras 2) C) Tenancy Law - Commercial Tenancy - Determination - The court held that the nature of tenancy (commercial or residential) must be determined by actual user of the premises, not merely the purpose for which it was let out. (Paras 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court erred in holding that the respondent/defendants had inherited the tenancy right in respect of suit shop as legal heirs of deceased late Sakharam Bhikaro Naik without proper pleadings, and whether the first appellate court misdirected itself in concluding that the tenancy was commercial on the basis of the purpose of letting rather than user of the premises.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court is set aside and the decree of the trial court is restored.
Law Points
- Tenancy inheritance requires specific pleadings of facts
- Commercial tenancy determined by actual user not purpose of letting
- Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC
