YAMUNABAI ANANDRAO BASTE Vs. SAKHARAM SUKHAJI JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is, whether the sale by a landlord of the premises, possession of which was recovered in pursuance of a decree under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - constitute "relettings' of the premises within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Act.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 2 Basantibai who was the Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 1971 obtained a decree for eviction against the Respondent No. 1 on the ground that she needed the premises "reasonably and bonafide" for occupation by herself. She recovered possession of the premises in pursuance of the decree on 19.3.1975. But, on 9th September, 1975, within six months of the recovery of possession, Basantibai sold the premises to the petitioner. The Respondent No. 1, the tenant, applied for possession under Section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that the landlord, by selling the premises, has "relet" them within one year from the date of recovery of possession. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act does entitle a tenant to recover possession from the landlord any person who may be in occupation, if the landlord and "relts" the premises in the circumstances stated in that Section (Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act). The learned IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, who dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1981 against the Order of the joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nasik, allowing the application of the Respondent No. 1, held that the transfer by sale constitutes "reletting" of the premises.

(3.) THE question is whether this consequence of reletting the premises within one year follows even where the landlord disposes of his interest in the property in any other manner. While Section 13(1)(g) creates in the landlord the right to recover possession for his own occupation, sub-section (1) of Section 17 lays down certain consequences which are designed to discourage the landlord from reletting the premises to a person other than the original tenant. The implied prohibition against reletting is not absolute and perpetual. The tenant gets the right to apply under sub-section (1) of Section 17 only if the premises are relet within one year of the recovery of possession. In other words, if the landlord relets the premises after one year, the tenant has no right to apply for reinstatement into the premises. The stipulation of one year during which the landlord cannot relt the premises and the condition that the tenant must apply within one year of such reletting, signify the temporary nature of the prohibition against reletting. The landlord is not perpetually precluded from reletting. However, there is no prohibition at all against the disposal or transfer of the premises by other modes. But the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Damle seeks to extend the meaning of "letting" to sales also. It is necessary to understand whether sale of the premises falls within the meaning of "releting" of the premises. The word "let" literally means to permit. But in its ordinary meaning it is used the context rent, lease etc. as in the sentence "she let him the rooms or let him the premises" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971, Vol. II). But in legal phraseology, it is synonymous with demise (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 3, 1986). The word "letting" has been construed to be equivalent to the word "lease" (Parker v. Sower by, I Weekly Reports 404). In fact, lease has been understood as letting (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Vol. 3, 1986). The word "letting" has been used in different sections of the Bombay Rent Act to mean relationship of lessor and lessee. For instance, the definition of the word "premises" refers to the 'building let or given on licence' and 'premises let or given on licence for business" (Section 8 of the Bombay Rent Act). Similarly, the word "let" has been used in other Sections to denote relationship of lessee and lessor (Section 6 of the Bombay Rent Act). Therefore, the act of letting is the act of creating the interest of lease. Whereas the lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property in consideration of a price paid or promised, in a sale there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the property sold. No rights are left in the transferor. In a lease there is a partial transfer or demise and the rights left in the transferor are called the reversion. This basic difference between lease or letting and sale is of fundamental importance.