Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Eloff Hansson (India) Pvt. Ltd., was a tenant in office premises in Mumbai. The respondents, landlords, terminated the tenancy in 1993 and filed a suit for possession on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The suit was decreed by the trial court but set aside by the appellate bench in 2003, against which a writ petition was pending. Meanwhile, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force, and Section 3(1)(b) exempted premises let to multinational companies from its protection. The respondents filed a fresh suit (T.E. Suit No.284/299 of 2001) seeking possession on the ground that the applicant was a multinational company. The trial court held the applicant to be a multinational company and ordered eviction, which was upheld by the appellate bench. The applicant challenged these concurrent findings in a civil revision application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the evidence, including the applicant's own admission in a letter that it was a multinational company, and found no perversity in the findings. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not open to interference in revision. The civil revision application was dismissed, confirming the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Exemption of Multinational Companies - Section 3(1)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court considered whether the applicant tenant was a multinational company and thus exempt from the Rent Act - The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the applicant to be a multinational company based on evidence of foreign ownership and control - Held that the concurrent findings were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Section 115 CPC (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Applicant is a multinational company disentitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or warrant interference under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the eviction order.
Law Points
- Multinational company
- exemption from Rent Act
- Section 3(1)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999
- concurrent findings
- no perversity
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 93
Civil Revision Application No.630 of 2009
Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Mr. Shyam Kapadia i/b Chitnis & Co. for Applicant. Mr. Vijay A. Thorat, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Prachi Tatake for Respondents.
Eloff Hansson (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Rahul I. Kadri, Mrs. Isha Y. Mehra, Mrs. Monisha S. Shetty
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging concurrent findings of eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the judgments and orders of the trial court and appellate bench directing eviction.
Filing Reason
The applicant was held to be a multinational company and thus disentitled to protection under the Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Small Causes Court, Mumbai) on 11/02/2005 and the appellate bench on 06/08/2009 directed eviction of the applicant.
Issues
Whether the applicant is a multinational company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or warrant interference under Section 115 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that it is not a multinational company and that the findings are perverse.
The respondents contended that the applicant admitted to being a multinational company in a letter and that the concurrent findings are based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact that the applicant is a multinational company are based on evidence and are not perverse; therefore, no interference under Section 115 CPC is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
This Civil Revision Application challenges Judgment and Order dated 11/02/2005 made by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai (Trial Court), and Judgment and Order dated 06/08/2009 made by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai (Appeal Court), directing the eviction of the Applicant from the suit premises upon record of concurrent findings that the Applicant is a multinational company and therefore disentitled to the protection of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ('Rent Act').
Procedural History
The respondents terminated tenancy on 07/07/1993 and filed R.A.E. Suit No.709/1702 of 1993 for possession. The suit was decreed but set aside on appeal on 28/08/2003. Meanwhile, the Rent Act came into force on 31/03/2000. The respondents filed T.E. Suit No.284/299 of 2001 seeking possession on the ground that the applicant is a multinational company. The trial court decreed eviction on 11/02/2005, which was upheld by the appellate bench on 06/08/2009. The applicant filed the present civil revision application.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 3(1)(b)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 115
