Case Note & Summary
The applicants, claiming to be trustees under a Deed of Wakf dated 22 December 1942, filed a suit for ejectment against the respondents in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. They alleged that the suit premises (plot no. 123) were part of a larger property demised by the Secretary of State for India in Council to Lakhmidas Haridas and Rustomji Sethna under a lease dated 23 December 1909 for 99 years. The applicants claimed to have succeeded to that demise and that the respondents were monthly subtenants. They terminated the tenancy by notice dated 16 October 1984 and sought possession. The plaint lacked particulars of how the demise devolved upon the applicants and through whom the subtenancy was created. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed. The High Court, in revision, held that the applicants failed to prove their title and that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly the original lessee or the government. The court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that the applicants had not established any relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondents. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ejectment Suit - Title Proof - Burden on Plaintiff - In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff must prove his title to the property and the relationship of landlord and tenant with the defendant. The plaint must contain particulars of how the plaintiff derived title. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties - Original Lessee - In a suit based on a leasehold interest, the original lessee or the government (lessor) is a necessary party. Failure to implead them renders the suit not maintainable. (Paras 2-3)
C) Rent Control - Applicability - Government Premises - The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 does not apply to premises belonging to the Government. However, the plaintiff must still prove title and maintainability. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants/plaintiffs have established their title to the suit property and whether the suit for ejectment is maintainable without impleading the necessary parties, particularly the original lessee or the government.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is dismissed. The impugned order dated 4 April 2003 dismissing Appeal No. 409 of 2001 is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof of title
- Non-joinder of necessary parties
- Maintainability of ejectment suit
- Applicability of Rent Act to government premises
- Requirement of particulars in plaint
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 91
Civil Revision Application No. 198 of 2008
Mr. Vijay Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms Prachi Tatke, Simeeen Shaikh, Rashmi Patil i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Applicants. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. Ashutosh Gole for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mohomed Farouk Suleman Darvesh, Hasanmiya Suleman Darvesh, Abdul Aziz Abdul Latif (since deceased deleted)
Sardar Tarlochansingh Pritamsingh Kalsi, Sardar Rajwantsingh Pritamsingh Kalsi, Pravinsingh Sardar Bhagatsingh Kalsi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging dismissal of appeal in an ejectment suit.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought a decree in ejectment against the respondents to vacate the suit premises (plot no. 123).
Filing Reason
The applicants claimed to be trustees under a Deed of Wakf and alleged that the respondents were monthly subtenants whose tenancy was terminated.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit; the appeal (Appeal No. 409 of 2001) was dismissed by the impugned order dated 4 April 2003.
Issues
Whether the applicants have established their title to the suit property?
Whether the suit for ejectment is maintainable without impleading necessary parties (original lessee/government)?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that they are trustees and succeeded to the leasehold interest, and that the Rent Act does not apply as the premises belong to the government.
Respondents contended that the plaint lacks particulars of devolution of title and that necessary parties are not impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff must prove his title and the relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaint must contain particulars of how the plaintiff derived title. Non-joinder of necessary parties, such as the original lessor, renders the suit not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This civil revision application challenges the judgment and order dated 4 April 2003 (impugned order) dismissing the Appeal No. 409 of 2001 in L.E.Suit No. 14/19 of 1985 instituted by the applicants in the Court of Small Causes Court at Mumbai.
The applicants claim to be trustees under the Deed of Wakf dated 22 December 1942 made by one Zulekhabai...
In the plaint, there is an averment that the suit premises belong to the Government and therefore the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act) do not apply to the suit premises.
Procedural History
The applicants filed L.E. Suit No. 14/19 of 1985 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for ejectment. The suit was dismissed. The applicants appealed (Appeal No. 409 of 2001), which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 4 April 2003. The applicants then filed this civil revision application (CRA No. 198 of 2008) in the High Court of Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882: Section 41
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
