ROMEO PASCOL KINNY AND ORS. Vs. SAVITRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application impugns the judgment and decree dated 10 April 2015 made by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Appeal Court), inter alia, declaring the respondent as the tenant in respect of the suit premises.

(2.) Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that under the scheme of Section 7 (15) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( Rent Act), which defines the expression 'tenant' only such member of the tenant's family or such legal heir of the tenant, who, where the suit premises were let out for commercial purposes, is using the suit premises for any such purpose at the time of demise of the original tenant, can qualify to be a tenant of the suit premises. Mr.Tripathi submitted that if the legislature has deemed it appropriate to impose a condition upon any member of the tenant's family, that such member uses the suit premises for commercial purposes, at the time of death of the original tenant, in order to claim tenancy to the suit premises, then it is only logical that the same condition should also apply to a legal heir of the deceased tenant, who claims tenancy to the suit premises. Mr. Tripathi submits that such interpretation adopted by the Small Causes (Trial Court), was unjustifiably upset by the Appeal Court. Therefore, Mr. Tripathi contends that the impugned order is without jurisdiction or in any case, in excess of jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr. Tripathi submits that the view taken by the Appeal Court is contrary to the law and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside, at least on grounds of illegality and material irregularity by exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).