Case Note & Summary
The appellants, trustees of Bai Bhichaiji H. Bennett Trust, filed a suit for declaration that the respondent was a trespasser in Flat No.E4 and for possession. The trust owned the property known as Sir Shapoorji Broacha Baug. The flat was initially let to R. D. Bhagat prior to 1982. Bhagat died in February 1995, after which Nusli Randelia claimed tenancy rights. Randelia and the respondent filed a suit in the Small Causes Court claiming tenancy. Randelia died on 08/05/2006. The appellants contended that after Randelia's death, the respondent became an unlawful occupant and trespasser. The respondent denied being a trespasser and claimed that she had been in possession for more than twelve years, thus becoming a deemed tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. She also referred to the pending suit in the Small Causes Court. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent was not a trespasser and had become a deemed tenant. The appellants appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the appellants failed to prove that the respondent was a trespasser. The court observed that the respondent's possession was long-standing and that rent had been accepted from the deceased Nusli Randelia. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Deemed Tenancy - Section 5(4)(c) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court considered whether the defendant, who was in possession of the suit flat for more than twelve years and had paid rent which was accepted by the plaintiffs, could be deemed a tenant under the Act. The trial court held that the defendant was not a trespasser and had become a deemed tenant. The High Court affirmed, noting that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant was a trespasser and that the defendant's possession was lawful. (Paras 1-14) B) Civil Procedure - Appeal under Section 96 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's findings of fact, as they were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent-defendant was a trespasser in the suit premises or had become a deemed tenant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 by virtue of her long possession and payment of rent.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. The trial court's judgment dated 17/10/2008 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Deemed tenancy under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 5(4)(c)
- Trespass
- Possession for more than twelve years
- Burden of proof on plaintiff to establish trespass
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in appeal under Section 96 CPC
