LAWS(BOM)-1994-2-15

BHAVARLAL SUKHLAL SONI Vs. LAXMINARAYAN DEO PUBLIC TRUST

Decided On February 10, 1994
BHAVARLAL SUKHLAL SONI Appellant
V/S
LAKSHMINARAYAN DEO PUBLIC TRUST, DHULE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Single Judge (Srikrishna, J.) to resolve the conflict of opinion as to interpretation of section 13 (1) (1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947 (the Act ).

(2.) IN Gajanand v. Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh, 1982 (1) Bom CR 259 (R. A. Jahagirdar, J.) and in Dattatraya Pandi Kharote v. Pandurang maruti Jadhav, 1991 Bom RC 60 (Ashok Agarwal J.) have held that the provision applies only to the premises taken on lease for residential use. In Madhukar Vishnu Sathe v. Vithoba Ramji Thorat, AIR 1992 Bom 272 (V. V. Kamat, J.) has taken a view that the provision would apply also to premises taken for commercial use.

(3.) FACTUAL matrix lies in a narrow compass and it is this; Lakshmi-narayan Deo Public Trust, Swaminarayan Mandir, Dhule (the landlord)had let out for commercial use the shop premises to deceased Bhavarlal sukhlal Soni (tenant) The tenant secured another commercial premises in the town and on that basis a suit for recovery of possession of the premises under Clause 13 (1) (1) was filed by the landlord. The trial court dismissed the suit taking a view that Section 13 (1) (1) is not attracted in cases of tenancy for commercial purposes. The said order of dismissal was set aside in Appeal on the basis of the case of Madhukar vishnu Sathe (supra ). Aggrieved thereby, this petition was filed by the legal heirs of the tenant. During the course of hearing, the learned Single judge noticed the above conflict of opinions and hence referred the question to a larger Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to place the petition itself before us for final disposal