NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF BAHAIS OF INDIA Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a simple appeal arising out of rent control proceedings under Section 13 (l) (g) of the Bombay Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). This appeal has taken a circuitous course by reason of the landlord and the tenant trying to outwit each other. With this prefatory remark we go on to the minimum facts which are necessary for determination of this case. Appellant 1 (the National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais of India Society) came to purchase the suit property in March 1967 therein under the sale deed was Bungalow No. 2 of Sardar's Estate therein the final plot Nos. 437 and 439 in the Town Planning Scheme No. Ill Panchgani. Out of this property purchased the property forming part of the dispute is Bunglow No. 2 from Sardar's Estate bearing final plot No. 437 Scheme No. III. At this stage, it requires to be stated that it is a common case between the parties that the second appellant is a charitable trust

(2.) The second appellant leased out the property in favour of the first respondent. The tenancy was from month to month. However, the annual rent was fixed at Rs. 1,200. 00. The second plaintiff invoking the benefit of Section 13 (l) (g) of the Act sought eviction of the defendant. These are the facts averred in the plaint. In the written statement it has not been denied anywhere that the first appellant was the landlord and the payment of rent to the second appellant was by reason of any arrangement between the first and the second appellant. In other words that the second appellant was receiving rent on behalf of the first appellant.

(3.) In the plaint Section 13 (l) (g) was invoked staling that the second appellant was entitled to receive the benefit of Section 13 (l) (g). The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the second plaintiff was the landlord and the premises were bona fide required for school. Thereupon appeal No. 289 was preferred by the respondents. At this stage an application was filed by the plaintiffs to lead an evidence that the second and the first appellants were the landlords. It also transpires that an opportunity was sought to establish the first appellant itself was a trust. This was objected to by the tenant. By an order dated 28/4/1978 this application was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellate court considered the matter and came to the conclusion that (the appellant) the first appellant alone was the landlord within the meaning of the Act. There was no bona fide requirement of the suit premises. It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Special civil application was preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution to the High court. The High court concurred with the appellate court and confirmed the dismissal of the suit. Thus, Civil No. 704 of 1987 is filed.