Civil revision application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Kashinath Ramchandra Kolwankar, challenging the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in favor of the plaintiffs, the legal heirs of Ramakant B. Desai. The core issue revolves around the ownership of the property and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, with the defendants claiming the society as the real owner of the premises. The Appellate Court’s decree ordered the defendant to vacate the property and pay arrears of rent with interest. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the revision application and upheld the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship was sufficient for the eviction, and the inquiry into title was irrelevant.

Parties:

• Applicants (Defendants): Legal heirs of Kashinath Ramchandra Kolwankar.
• Respondents (Plaintiffs): Legal heirs of Ramakant B. Desai.

Property Involved:

The property in dispute is a flat (F-2) located on the ground floor of a building named Dulaba Prasad, owned by the plaintiffs.

Key Events:

1. Tenancy Creation: The defendant, Kashinath Kolwankar, was inducted as a tenant by Ramakant B. Desai in 1955, paying rent until 1988.
2. Eviction Suit: The plaintiffs filed RAE & R Suit No. 46/83 of 1992, seeking eviction on grounds of arrears of rent, unauthorized alterations, subletting, and denial of title.
3. Society Ownership Claim: The defendants argued that the society, not the plaintiffs, was the real owner of the property, as per proceedings before the Co-operative Society Registrar, and claimed their right to possession as society members.
4. Trial Court Decision: The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish landlord status and that the suit was barred by res judicata.
5. Appellate Court Decision: The Appellate Bench reversed this decision, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship and ordering eviction and payment of arrears.
6. High Court: The High Court upheld the Appellate Court’s decision, dismissing the revision application, emphasizing that the landlord-tenant relationship sufficed for eviction.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Bombay Rent Act, 1947:

   • Section 5(3): Definition of "landlord," stating that a person entitled to receive rent, whether as owner or otherwise, can be considered a landlord.
   • Sections 12 and 13: Grounds for eviction, including arrears of rent and unauthorized alterations or sub-letting.

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

   • Section 116: Estoppel of tenants, preventing them from denying the landlord's title during the tenancy period.

3. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:

   • Section 23: Relates to membership in a co-operative society.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The court held that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, established through rent payments and possession of the premises, was sufficient to maintain an eviction suit. Ownership of the property was not relevant for the purposes of determining the suit.

2. Estoppel Under Section 116 of the Evidence Act: The court reaffirmed that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord's title during the tenancy without first surrendering possession. This principle barred the defendants from denying the plaintiffs’ status as landlords.

3. Finality of Society Proceedings Irrelevant: The court ruled that the proceedings before the Co-operative Society Registrar regarding society membership did not impact the plaintiffs’ right to seek eviction under the Rent Act.

Subjects:

#LandlordTenantRelationship, #Eviction, #RentArrears, #PropertyOwnership, #BombayRentAct, #TenantEstoppel, #MaharashtraCooperativeSocietiesAct, #CivilRevision