INDRADAMAN AMRITLAL Vs. ANANDLAL NANDLAL KAVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two revision applications an interesting question of law is raised and it is whether the Tribunal constituted under section 13(3-B) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is required to hear a tenant before granting a certificate in favour of the landlord as required by section 13(3-A) of the Act.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner in both the revision applications is the owner of final plot No. 558 measuring 5931 sq. yards of Ellis Bridge, Town Planning Scheme No. 3. It is a composite block of land containing many buildings units including two tenement buildings occupied by the tenants. One of these tenements buildings consists of ground floor and upper floor. The ground floor and the first floor of this building are separately let out to the respondents in these petitions. in the year 1964 the petitioner through his Engineer, approached the then Executive Engineer, Road and Buildings with tentative plans for obtaining a certificate under section 13(3-B)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Executive Engineer granted the certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Suits Nos. 1619 and 1606 of 1965 against said tenants Chandrakant and Anandilal, for ejectment under section 13(1)(hh) of the Act in the Court of the Small Causes, Ahmadabad. The petitioner produced the requisite certificate of the Tribunal along with the plaint in each suit. The two suits were consolidated for trial and were decided by a common judgment of the Court dated March 30, 1968. The trial Court held that the petitioner's requirement was neither bona fide nor reasonable on the sole ground that only 1/4th area of the premises was to be utilised for the new premises The petitioner then tiled Civil Appeals Nos. 200 and 201 of 1968 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmadabad, which were ultimately dismissed. These two revision applications were, therefore, filed challenging the said decision in appeals. The revision applications came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court, who referred to a Division Bench the issue whether the Tribunal is required to hear the tenant before granting a certificate in favour of the landlord as provided in section 13( 3-A) of the Act. It must be noted that the point referred to us was argued before the learned Judge and at the time of arguments the petitioner admitted that the tenants were not heard by the Tribunal during the proceedings of granting the certificate under Sec. 13(3-B) to the landlord.

(3.) Mr. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner contended that the question whether an authority is a Tribunal having power to decide judicially or an administrative body assigned with the functions which are to be discharged in the administrative manner must depend upon the provisions of the concerned statute. The provisions of the Act restrict the right of the landlord to evict a tenant and section 13 of the Act provides the grounds on which the landlord can evict a tenant. One of the grounds on which the landlord can ask for a decree of possession is section 13(l)(hh) of the Act. Sections 13(3-A) and (3-B) put further restrictions on the right of a landlord to obtain a decree of eviction under section 13(l)(hh) of the Act. The restrictions placed by the provisions of sections J 3(3-A) and (3-B) of the Act are in the nature of a condition precedent and this is clear because the said provisions amongst other things require production of a certificate under subsection (3-B) of section 13 of the Act at the time of the institution of the suit. While issuing a certificate under Sec. 13(3-B) of the Act the Tribunal is not adjudicating upon any right of the parties. The plaintiff-landlord requires the certificate under section 13(3-B) of the Act to satisfy a condition precedent. The landlord has to produce a Tribunal's certificate as to whether plans are properly prepared and approved by the Municipality, whether there are necessary funds with the landlord and whether the landlord is the owner of the property in dispute. The landlord is again required to establish the aforesaid facts before the Rent Court to show his reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises for erecting a new building after demolition. It is open to the tenant to raise objections in the Court with respect to the validity of the certificate as well as with regard to the plans, estimates, title and the financial condition of the landlord and a full fledged inquiry is not contemplated by sections 13(3-A) and 13(3-B) of the Act. A certificate is required to be issued by the Tribunal to enable the landlord to obtain a decree of eviction against the tenant on the basis of the right given to the landlord under section 13(1) (hh) of the Act. In issuing a certificate the Tribunal has not to act in arbitrary or mechanical manner but has to exercise its discretion on the basis of objective facts. Guideline for exercising the power of issuing certificate is given as per the provisions of the rules framed by the Government under the power vested in it. The aforesaid rules and provisions of the Act do not make specific provision for issuing a notice to the tenant before a certificate is granted and there is no provision which requires that the tenant should be heard at that stage.