RAMCHANDRA BHAU MARATHE Vs. SHAILA MARUTIRAO NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 16th September, 1989 in Appeal No. 696 of 1986.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated some of the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is in possession of Shop No. 3 in Fatmabai Chawl (Farook House), 565-A, N. M. Joshi Marg, S. Bridge, Bombay 400 011. The petitioner is the original defendant, whereas the respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit premises were originally owned by one Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, who had constructed the suit house. The petitioner was inducted by the original owner in the suit premises on monthly rent basis. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the said Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo died leaving behind his widow Fatimabai and nephew Abdul Rahim Suleman Waghoo. It is the respondents case that after the death of the original owner Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, his nephew, said Abdul Rahim Suleman Waghoo, being the heir and legal representative, succeeded to the property and started managing the affairs of the said property. According to the respondent, there was a partnership venture between the respondent and the said Abdul Rahim Suleman Waghoo in which certain disputes arose, resulting in filing of the suit before the City Civil Court being S. C. Suit No. 5721 of 1978. The said suit was however, compromised between them on January 15, 1979, pursuant to which the respondent became the owner of the suit property. It is the respondents case that even before the consent decree, the respondent was actually looking after the suit property and in fact the petitioner was duly informed by the owner to pay the monthly rent to the respondent from time to time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner paid rent directly to the respondent for the period between October 1977 till September 1978. After the consent decree was passed, the respondent, in her own rights, claimed the rent in respect of the suit premises from the petitioner. However, it appears that the petitioner remained in arrears consequent to which the respondent issued demand notice on February 18, 1980 demanding arrears from the period between 1st June, 1978 to 31st January, 1980. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not tender rent as demanded in the suit notice nor raised any dispute regarding the standard rent under the provisions of sections 11 or 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) within the specified period of one month from the date of receipt of the said notice. Accordingly, the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay being a RAE Suit No. 773/2685 of 1980 for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of default within the meaning of section 12 of the Act. Ordinarily, in view of nonpayment of rent within one month from the date of receipt of suit notice and failure to raise dispute regarding the standard rent within such period, the tenant would become liable for eviction within the meaning of section 12 (3) (a) of the Act. But in the present case, the defence of the petitioner was that he was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent because, according to him, the respondent was not the landlady.

(3.) ON the basis of stand taken by the rival parties, the said matter went for trial. The trial Court found that the respondent was not the landlady and, therefore, had no locus to file the suit for possession against the petitioner. The trial Court held that the land is the Corporation land and, after the demise of Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo the original lessee, the land reverted back to the Corporation and the petitioner became the protected licensee and direct tenant of the Corporation. Taking this view of the matter, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent.