Case BriefsHigh Courts

Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. confirmed a decree of eviction passed against the appellant-tenant by the District Judge on the bonafide requirement of the landlord.

The sole ground for eviction being contended in the application was the requirement of suit premises for the personal occupation of the landlord. Under the relevant statutory notification, the landlord could evict the tenant only on showing the bonafide requirement for personal occupation. A holistic reading of the plaint suggested that the landlord required the suit premises as his house was in a dilapidated condition; his ill health including mental illness for which he desired to accommodate a help; to accommodate his growing children who did not have adequate personal space in the house and who were pestering him for it which was causing him mental stress; to establish them in business as they were completing their education; etc.

The appellant -tenant was represented by Laxmi Chakraborty and Manju Rai, Advocates. Per contra, Zangpo Sherpa, Deven Sharma, Jushan Lepcha and Mon Maya Subba, Advocates represented the respondent-landlord.

On perusal of the record, the High Court found the facts as claimed of the landlord to be true. Referring to its earlier case in Pradeep Golyan v. Durga Prasad Mukhia, 2016 SCC OnLine Sikk 225, the Court observed: “That personal occupation of the landlord includes the requirement of the dependents as well is now well settled.” The landlord pleaded hardship and proved it. He proved a bonafide requirement of personal occupation. Furthermore, the appellant did was unable to show any special equities in his favour against the eviction.

In such circumstances, the Court confirmed the decree of eviction passed by the District Judge. However, considering the fact that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises and doing his business from there since 1999, he was given four months’ time to vacate the suit premises on the condition that he will continue to pay rent till then. [Bishnu Prasad Bhagat v. Prakash Basnett, RFA No. 5 of 2016, decided on 15-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a petition filed by the allottee of the subject shop who was charged with an offence punishable under Section 447 (punishment for criminal trespass) IPC, and quashed the order whereby the charge was farmed against him.

The petitioner was the allottee of the subject shop. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner had agreed to rent out the shop to him and had demanded a sum of Rs 50,000 to be paid in advance, after the payment of which the petitioner handed over the keys to him. The respondent, in his complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC, alleged that the petitioner, however, did not remove his articles from the shop with malafide intentions. And on 27-02-2011, while the complainant was getting the woodwork done, the petitioner broke the lock and trespassed into the shop.

Aditya Madan, Advocate for the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in framing the charge and not appreciating there was the allottee of and in possession of the shop. Per contra, Subodh Kumar Pathak, Advocate for the respondent supported the impugned order.

The High Court noted that admittedly, the petitioner was the allottee of the shop. The respondent did not produce any evidence to corroborate that any tenancy was created in his favour or the possession was handed over to him. It was observed: Section 447 is punishment for Criminal Trespass which is defined under Section 441 to be committed when a person enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. The impugned order clearly is erroneous in as much as the Trial Court has framed the charge on the presumption that the complainant was in possession of the shop at that time. As there is no material to show that possession was parted with by the petitioner or handed over to the complainant, petitioner could not have been charged with the offence under Section 447 IPC.”

In such view of the matter, the petition was allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner was quashed. [Jagdish Kapila v. Raj Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8617, decided on 21-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of Hrishikesh Roy and A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar. JJ. dismissed a writ appeal filed by landlord against an order dispensing with the requirement of his consent, for renewal of his tenant’s trade licence.

A partnership firm (tenant) – Vijaya Jyothi Traders ­– had filed an application before the Thrissur Municipal Corporation for a D&O (Dangerous & Offensive) licence. The Corporation refused to consider this application on the ground that the application was not supported by landlord’s (appellant herein) consent which was the mandate under Sections 492(3) and 492(4) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

In a petition filed by the managing partner of the firm (respondent herein), it was averred that averred that since there were some disputes between him and the appellant-landlord, therefore obtaining consent letter from the landlord must not be insisted for consideration of the renewal of the licence. Learned Single judge allowed the petition and directed the Corporation to consider the subject application without insisting for consent from the appellant-landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ appeal was filed.

The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had taken note of pending suits between the landlord and tenant and had also provided an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It relied on the judgment in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum, (2016) 14 SCC 263 where the Apex Court while deciding the on renewal of trade licence, stated that a tenant could not be deprived of running a lawful business merely because the landlord withheld his consent. A valid tenancy has implied the authority of the landlord for the legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.

In view of the above, the Court upheld the impugned judgment. [C.S. Babu v. C. Vijayan, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5783, Order dated 14-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby he allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The petitioner was a tenant of the respondent. The respondent, in the eviction petition filed by him, had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the suit property. the ground taken by him was a bona fide requirement. It was pleaded that the suit property was required by the respondent for expansion of the business. The petitioner, per contra, submitted that the said property was not suitable for expansion of business as sought by the respondent. the Additional Rent Controller, however, decreed the suit and passed the eviction orders against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the instant revision under Section 25-B of the DRC Act.

The High Court, while adjudicating on the matter, referred to a Supreme Court decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778. It was observed that whenever a landlord seeks ejectment of a tenant for bona fide requirement, it shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide. Furthermore, the burden to rebut the said presumption lies on the tenant; however, the mere assertion on part of the tenant does not suffice. In the instant case, the testimony of the respondent as to his bona fide requirement went unrebutted. In such view of the matter, the revision petition was dismissed and the order impugned was accordingly upheld. [Metro Bearings v. Faizunnisa, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12313, Order dated 31-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., dismissed a revision petition filed assailing the order of the Appellate Authority which in turn upheld the order of Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was ejected from the property in question.

The respondent filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller on the grounds that the petitioner-tenant had defaulted in paying the rent since June 2008. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not the landlord as he had taken the premises on rent from one Narinder Singh. The Rent Controller found that a relationship between tenant and landlord existed between the parties. And since the petitioner defaulted in paying the rent, petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the property concerned. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings and upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court perused the record and found that the abovementioned Narinder Singh, in his examination, had stated that he had sold the property concerned to the petitioner. A power of attorney and a Will was also executed in favor of the petitioner. The Court did not find any registered sale deed proving the factum of sale; however, the abovesaid documents showed that there was some arrangement between the petitioner and Narinder Singh whereby the petitioner exercised the rights of the landlord. The Court held the law to be well settled that a person can be a landlord even without having ownership rights in the property. The High Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition was thereby dismissed. [Ashok Kumar v. Piara Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 733, dated 29-05-2018]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: In an appeal filed by a Landlord against the liability from failure to keep ‘paved area outside the building’ in repair as per the Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1985, the Court allowing the appeal, held that the landlord is not in breach of his statutorily implied obligation for carrying out repairs until he has the notice of the disrepair.

Section 11 of the 1985 Act applies to Sub-tenancy agreements and extends the landlord’s statutory repairing covenants to “keep in repair the structure and the exterior of the dwelling-house”. In the present case, the subtenant having tripped over an uneven stone on a paved way which was the main access to the building and suffered injuries, had brought action against the landlord for the breach of the provision. The Court of Appeals had allowed the case but in the present appeal the Court took a contrary view.

The Court held that the expressions of the obligations under the Section 11 should be given a natural meaning rather than an artificially wide one. It held that, the fact that a piece of property is a necessary means of access to a building cannot be sufficient for it to constitute part of the ‘exterior’ of that building. Therefore, the paved way did not fall within the ambit of the provision.  Moreover, the Court as an exception to the general principle upheld the rule that, the landlord is not liable under a covenant with his tenant to repair premises which are in the possession of the tenant and not of the landlord unless and until the landlord has notice of the disrepair. Relying on a number of cases which had earlier upheld the rule the Court held that the landlord  could only be held liable if he had had notice of the disrepair before the accident, which he did not have. In accordance with both the observation the appeal of the landlord was allowed. [Edwards  v. Kumarasamy  [2016] UKSC 40, decided on 13 July 2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and P.C.Pant, JJ, were hearing a reference to decide the question as to whether after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in respect of an agricultural lease under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953, the tenancy gets automatically terminated and the person occupying the leased premises ceases to be a tenant, as a 2-judge bench did not agree with the decision of a coordinate bench in Sukhdev Singh v. Puran , (2015) 12 SCC 344 where it was held that tenant under the 1953 Act ceases to be one on expiry of the fixed term tenancy under the contract whereafter he is not entitled to the statutory protection from eviction as envisaged under the Act.

The Court held that to be entitled to protection from eviction under the 1953 Act any person claiming such protection has to come within the fold of the expression “tenant” under the 1953 Act read with the relevant provisions of the Punjab tenancy Act, 1887 Act. Statutory protection would be available only to a statutory tenant, namely, a tenant under the Act. The 1953 Act read with the relevant provisions of the 1887 Act does not include a tenant whose lease has expired. Nevertheless, retention/continuance of possession after expiry of the duration of the lease with the consent of the landlord will continue to vest in the erstwhile tenant the same status on the principle of holding over.

The Court, further held that such continuance even after expiry of the deemed period of the lease under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1888 would clothe the occupant with the status of a tenant under the Act in view of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the consequences of holding over. The operation of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act would confer legitimacy to the possession of the tenant even after the termination or expiration of the deemed period of the lease so as to confer on him a status akin to that of a statutory tenant and hence protection from eviction as envisaged by the provisions of the Act of 1953. [Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 661, decided on 05.07.2016]