Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – ss. 15 and 16 – The Trial Court opined that the landlord was the best judge of his own requirement and on that basis the issue of bona fide need was decided in favour of the appellants-landlords – The Appellate Court sustained the judgment and decree on the ground of bona fide need as also necessity to effect demolition of the subject-building – The Revisional Court on analysing the provisions of ss. 15 and 16 of the said statute set aside the judgment and decree and allowed the revision applications of the tenants – Propriety:
Held: The High Court correctly held that there was no satisfaction in the manner contemplated in s.16 (2) of the 1999 Act as far as bona fide need in terms of s.16(1)(g) was concerned – In the impugned judgment, the High Court has dealt with in detail the list of properties which were with the landlords and on that basis gave its own finding in that regard, there is no perversity in such view taken by the High Court – Sub-section (6) of s.16 also mandates satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) thereof – Subclause (d) in particular, contemplates the landlord to give undertaking in terms of paragraphs (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of that subclause, while dealing with landlord’s eviction claim based on s.16(1)(i) of the said statute – These are all mandatory requirements and one cannot find any flaw with the judgment of the High Court to the extent it rejects the claim of the landlord for non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions – As far as demolition notice by the Municipal Authority is concerned, section 16(1)(k) of the said Act permits recovery of possession of tenanted premises on the ground that the premises are required for immediate purpose of demolition ordered by any municipal or other competent authority – The Court trying an eviction proceeding under the aforesaid provision has very limited role in determining as to whether demolition is really necessary or not, but it does not automatically follow therefrom that the Court would mechanically adopt the view of municipal authority of there being urgent need of demolition – The conditions under which a landlord can bring an eviction action under clauses
(i) and (k) of s.16(1) are different in their operations – In respect of an eviction proceeding founded on the former provision, it contemplates a lesser degree of immediacy or urgency – But the latter provision requires a greater degree of urgency and it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to test this factor, as held in the cases of M.L. Sonvane and Manohar P. Rampal – Both the fact finding fora failed on this count – The Revisional Court has fitted the facts with the legal provisions and found that there was mismatch on the basis of which the judgment and decree were set aside – The Judgment of the Revisional Court needs no re-appreciation. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 18]
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – s.16(1)(h) and (i) – Principle of “comparative hardship” – Tenancy Jurisprudence: Held: In the instant case, dealing with claim based on s.16(1)
(h) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Act, the statutory mandate for the Court is to test the question of part vacating – Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court chose to analyse this requirement before directing eviction – This provision becomes relevant as the initial demolition notice identifies a part of the premises requiring demolition and the Commissioner’s report is also on that line – Sub-section (2) of s.16 relates to reasonable and bona fide need in terms of s.16(1)(g) and if the requirement is in the aforesaid terms, then the Court has to be satisfied having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant – This provision essentially incorporates the principle of “comparative hardship”, as such a test has come to be known in tenancy jurisprudence. [Para 11]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.