BASWANT & CO. Vs. RANGALAL SURAJMAL MARWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by M/s. Baswant and Company, a registered firm, who claims to be the landlord of the premises in question, challenging the appellate Court's order passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Thane dated 9th October 1979 allowing the appeal filed by the tenant and dismissing the suit filed by the firm.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the respondent was the tenant of the said premises. However, it was contended by the respondent-tenant that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the premises, hence the suit filed is not maintainable. The trial Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Mishrimal Chhogalal v. N.B. Patel, 65 Bombay Law Reporter 15 held that the plaintiff firm was a rent collector and therefore the landlord within the meaning of the said expression as defined in Section 5(3) of the Act hence, the suit was maintainable. The appeal Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the firm was not the owner of the premises nor was a rent collector and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It is this finding recorded by the appeal Court which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) IT is not possible for me to accept these contentions of Shri Irani. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, I have gone through the relevant evidence on record, since an argument was advanced that the finding recorded by the appeal Court was perverse. One Khushaba Dagadu who claims to be a partner of the firm was examined on behalf of the firm. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not know as to who was the predecessor-in-title of the suit premises. It is his case that the respondent had not paid rent of the suit premises since January 1970. The firm came to be registered in the year 1971. Therefore, till then, obviously the original landlord continued to be the landlord. It was also admitted by the said witness that the suit premises, hence was previously owned by Sonubhau Dagadu Baswant. He was owner of it since 1940. He also admitted that prior to the registration of the firm, Sonubhau Dagadu Baswant used to collect the rent of the premises. He further admitted as true that after registration of the firm the said Sonubhau had not informed the defendant that the firm has become owner and the rent should be paid to the firm nor the firm had given any intimation in that behalf. The property extract of the suit premises from the Grampanchayat was also not produced. He admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that the firm had given the premises on lease to the defendant. Thus the appeal Court came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to show that the firm had become the owner of the property or that it was collecting the rent for and on behalf of the landlord. In view of this finding of fact the appeal Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit itself was not maintainable. This being a pure question of fact no interference is called for with the said finding in this writ jurisdiction. It is no doubt true that reliance was placed by the petitioner on certain counter-foils, but these counter foils are not signed by the tenant nor there is any evidence on record to show that these counter foils are the counter foils of the receipts issued to the respondent on payment of the rent by him. If the firm itself was registered in 1971, and it was the case of the firm that the tenant had not paid the rent since the year 1970, itself then the appeal Court was wholly justified in not placing any reliance on these counter foils. Hence it cannot be said that the finding of fact recorded by the appeal Court is any way perverse so as to call for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.