Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Dattakrupa Construction & Anr., filed a civil revision application challenging the orders dated 27 May 2013 and 13 May 2015 passed by the trial court and the appeal court respectively, which decreed the respondent's regular civil suit no. 589 of 2003. The suit sought possession of shop no. 5 admeasuring 415 sq. ft. on the ground floor of a new building constructed in place of Shridhar Bhavan at Chendani, Naikwadi, Gokhale Road, Thane (West), and directions to the petitioners to hand over possession of the suit premises as tenanted premises. The respondent claimed to be a tenant under Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as a member of the family of the deceased original tenant carrying on business in the premises. The petitioners raised two main submissions: first, that there were no pleadings or evidence to establish that the respondent was carrying on business with the original tenant at the time of his death, and second, that the area of the premises was 350 sq. ft., not 415 sq. ft. The respondent argued that there was sufficient evidence, including the deposition of P.W.2 Kesharben (mother of the respondent) and the respondent's own testimony, to establish the business relationship. The court examined the evidence and found that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not perverse. Regarding the area, the court noted that the occupancy certificate from Thane Municipal Corporation indicated 350 sq. ft., but the respondent's witness had admitted that the area might be 350 sq. ft. However, the court held that the concurrent findings on area were based on evidence and not perverse. Consequently, the court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the decrees for possession.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenant Status - Section 7(15)(d) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Succession to Tenancy - The respondent plaintiff claimed tenancy rights as a member of the family of the deceased original tenant carrying on business in the tenanted premises. The court held that there was sufficient evidence, including the deposition of P.W.2 Kesharben and the respondent's own testimony, to establish that the respondent was carrying on business with the original tenant at the time of his death. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appeal court were not perverse and thus not interfered with in revision. (Paras 3-6) B) Rent Control - Area of Premises - Burden of Proof - The petitioners contended that the area of the suit premises was 350 sq. ft. and not 415 sq. ft. as decreed. The court noted that the occupancy certificate from Thane Municipal Corporation indicated 350 sq. ft., but the respondent's witness admitted that the area might be 350 sq. ft. However, the court found that the concurrent findings on area were based on evidence and not perverse, and declined to interfere. (Paras 3, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent plaintiff acquired the status of 'tenant' under Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in the absence of specific pleadings and evidence that he was carrying on business with the original tenant at the time of his death, and whether the area of the suit premises was 415 sq. ft. or 350 sq. ft.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is dismissed. The orders dated 27 May 2013 and 13 May 2015 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Tenant status under Section 7(15)(d) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 requires carrying on business with original tenant at time of death
- Burden of proof on claimant
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision
