MOHMED HAJI NOORMOHAMED Vs. MONA VICAJI JAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an order made by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay.

(2.) THE first point which is raised in this petition by Mr. Shah, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that the suit which was filed by the opponent against the petitioner in the Small Causes Court for recovering possession of the premises under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rants, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was not competent because of a certain order passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The point was raised both before the trial Judge and the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. Both the Courts have recorded a finding against the contention. In order to dispose of this contention, it is necessary to state the following facts.

(3.) THE second branch of the argument, also based upon, the two sections, as developed by Mr. Shah, was as follows : He contended that Section 13(1)(hhh) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because it cannot be said that the demolition of the premises was required to be made as a result of the order of any local authority. The contention was that as the opponent had obtained an order under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, under Sub -section (3) of that section, the opponent was exonerated from her responsibility towards the municipal authorities for non -compliance with the requisitions contained in the notice. Therefore, Mr. Shah contended that the result was that the opponent no longer required the premises for the purpose of demolishing them as a result of the order of any local authority. I do not agree with this contention. The mere fact that the opponent has obtained an order under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act does not terminate the necessity of demolishing the aforesaid premises. On the contrary, the fact that the petitioner is recalcitrant and does not afford facilities to the opponent to demolish the building emphasises the fact that the demolition is required to be made all the more. I do not think it would be proper to construe the provisions of Section 13(1)(hhh) in such a manner as to put a premium upon the intransigence and refractoriness of the tenant. In my opinion, if the landlord has taken proceedings under Section 507, and in spite of an order under that section the tenant is adamant and does not afford any facilities, then, though this act of refractoriness on the part of the tenant might exonerate the landlord from the liability under the Corporation Act, the requirement of the landlord to demolish the building remains intact, and that, that requirement does not cease. In my opinion, unless and until one comes to the conclusion that the requirement ceases because of the refractory attitude of the tenant, Clause (hhh) would still come into play. Therefore, there is no substance in any of the two branches of the argument advanced by Mr. Shah.