KAMRUDDIN MASJIT TRUST Vs. ABDUL RAHIMAN FAKIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises a question of some importance and one frequently arising in suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Rent Act) viz.--- Can a rent collector file suit for possession?

(2.) The suit property is that of a public trust. Claiming to be one of its trustees as also its rent collector, the plaintiff by his own notice terminated the defendants tenancy and demanded arrears of rent and possession. There was no reply thereto nor compliance with demand made. The plaintiff thereupon filed the instant suit for possession and arrears. The main defence was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff, who claimed to be one of the trustees of the suit trust and/or its rent collector, was not entitled to sue the defendant. The trial Court rejected this defence, held the suit to be maintainable and, on merits, decreed the same. In defendants appeal therefrom the suit was held to be not maintainable. The appeal was consequently allowed, the trial Courts decree set aside and the suit dismissed. Hence this petition by the plaintiff.

(3.) Now, on the merits of the suit claim there was no valid answer. Rent was payable by the month; arrears were for more than six months, the demand notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was not complied with; and there was no dispute regarding standard rent. All the ingredients of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act thus stood fulfilled. In express terms thereof, therefore, "...the Court shall pass a decree for eviction." However, for more than one reason, such decree is not possible here.