Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over tenancy rights in respect of Room No. E30, 3rd Floor, Tara Baug Estate, Mumbai. The suit premises were originally let out to Vishnu D. Dabak, who died in 1986. His son Janardhan continued to reside there until his death on 20 February 1998. After Janardhan's death, two persons claimed tenancy: the applicant Dharamvir I. Joshi, who claimed based on a Will allegedly executed by Janardhan, and the respondent Jayant R. Patwardhan, who claimed as a member of Janardhan's family residing with him at the time of death. Patwardhan filed R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001 in the Small Causes Court (Trial Court), which decreed the suit in his favor on 8 October 2007, declaring him the tenant and directing Joshi to remove his lock from the suit premises and restraining him from entering. Joshi appealed to the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court (Appeal Court) in Appeal No. 709 of 2008, which was dismissed on 23 October 2012. A review application (Review Application No. 3 of 2014) was also dismissed on 14 January 2015. Aggrieved, Joshi filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 225 of 2015 in the Bombay High Court. The legal issues were whether Joshi could claim tenancy based on a Will and whether Patwardhan was a family member entitled to tenancy under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Joshi argued that the Will gave him tenancy rights, while Patwardhan contended that he was a family member residing with Janardhan and thus entitled under the Act. The court analyzed the evidence and found that Patwardhan had proved his relationship and residence, while Joshi failed to prove the Will. The court held that tenancy rights are statutory and cannot be transferred by Will, and that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse. The court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the orders of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenancy Succession - Section 5(11)(c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Family Member - The dispute pertains to rival claims of tenancy after the death of the original tenant Janardhan. The respondent Patwardhan claimed tenancy as a member of Janardhan's family residing with him at the time of death, while the applicant Joshi claimed based on a Will. The court held that under Section 5(11)(c), a person who was a member of the tenant's family and residing with him at the time of death is entitled to tenancy, and a Will cannot defeat such statutory right. The court upheld the findings of the courts below that Patwardhan was a family member and residing with Janardhan. (Paras 1-6) B) Rent Control - Will - Validity - Section 5(11)(c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Statutory Succession - The court considered whether a Will executed by a tenant can bequeath tenancy rights. It held that tenancy rights are statutory and cannot be transferred by Will, as the succession is governed by the Rent Act. The Will relied upon by Joshi was not proved and even if genuine, it could not override the statutory provisions. (Paras 5-6) C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Scope - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interference - The court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. It held that the High Court can interfere only if there is a jurisdictional error or perversity in findings. In this case, the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant (Joshi) can claim tenancy on the basis of a Will left by the deceased tenant Janardhan, or whether the respondent (Patwardhan) is entitled to tenancy as a member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The impugned orders of the Trial Court, Appeal Court, and Review Court are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Will
- Family member
- Statutory succession
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Section 5(11)(c)
- Civil Revision Application
- Small Causes Court
- Mandatory injunction
- Permanent injunction
