Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – ss.16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) – Respondents-plaintiffs rented out a premises to the appellants-defendants – Appellants took the premises on rent for purpose of carrying out business of book shop – Respondents filed a suit for eviction of the appellants u/ss.16(1)(c), 16(1)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Act – Respondents’ case that in July, 2015, the appellants closed down the business of the bookstore, and since then, the premises was not used for more than six months prior to the suit, for the purpose for it was let out – It was also alleged that appellants also started business of garments and foodstuff at different intervals but the same was closed down – Further, appellants had also sublet the premises to the third party – Trial court found that all three grounds were not made out and suit was dismissed – However, Appellate Court allowed the appeal and in revision, the High Court affirmed the findings of the Appellate Court – On appeal, held: The grounds of illegal subletting and nuisance (foodstuff) taken by the respondents unsustainable – Insofar as ground relating to non-user is concerned, the requirement of s.16(1)(n) of Act need to be satisfied, it has to be established that for a period of six months continuously from 20.04.2006 till the date of institution of the suit, i.e. 20.10.2006 the suit premises were not used by the tenant/appellants without a reasonable ground for the purpose for which it was let out i.e. business of book shop – Besides, under the Shops and Establishments Act, a person having a shop must be registered – In other words, carrying on a shop or establishment, as defined in the Act, without registration, would make it illegal – In the instant case, appellant did not pay any fees for renewal of the registration during the year 2006 – Burden actually is on the landlord to establish the non-user – But since, there was no registration for the said period it showed that the appellant could not have lawfully conducted any business in the suit premises – Also, the two courts found the ground of non-user u/s.16(1)(n) of Act established – Therefore, no need to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The following elements must be established under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - the premises must have been let out for a particular purpose; there must be non-user by the tenant for the purpose; the nonuser must be without reasonable cause; the non-user must be for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit. [Para 19] [469-B]
2. The requirement of Section 16(1)(n) will be satisfied if it is established that for a period of six months continuously from 20.04.2006 till the date of institution of the suit i.e. 20.10.2006, the suit premises were not used by the tenant without a reasonable ground for the purpose for which it was let out. Since even the appellants do not have a case that the appellants were carrying on the business in readymade garments or fast food during the period, the only business that the appellants can lay store by, is the business in books. [Para 25] [470-G-H; 471-A-B]
3. Under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 under Section 7(2)(A), a registration certificate shall be valid upto the end of the year for which it is granted. As it stands now, it is valid for a period of twelve months from the date it is granted or renewed. This is after the substitution by Act 25 of 2013. Therefore, the provision, which is relevant, is the previous provision, under which, as noted, the registration certificate would be valid upto the end of the year for which it was granted. Therefore, even going by the registration certificate produced and under the Act, issued on 09.09.2005, it came to an end by the end of the year. The word “year” is defined in Section 2(32) as meaning that “a year commencing first day of January”. Thus, even the appellant apparently paid the fees for renewal of the registration only on 09.01.2007. He did not pay any fees for renewal of the registration during the year 2006. On 30.11.2007, no doubt, registration certificate was issued. The result is that during the year 2006, it can be concluded that there was no registration for the business either in books or fast food. [Para 28] [471-F-H; 472-A-B]
4. This apart, the fact that under the Shops and Establishments Act, it is undoubtedly true that a person having a shop must get it registered. In other words, carrying on a shop or establishment, as defined in the Act, without registration, would make it illegal. The fact that there is a registration, however, would not be sufficient to establish that there is use of the premises. In other words, even if a person has registration, that by itself would not mean that the tenant is actually using the premises for the purpose for which it is rented out to him. Actual use of the premises can be established by various other circumstances like electricity bills, payment of wages to employees if there are employees, evidence relating to transactions of the business which is carried on etc. No doubt, the burden actually is on the landlord to establish the non-user. But since, in this case, it would appear that there is no registration for the period, it shows that the appellants could not have lawfully conducted any business in the suit premises. There is, no doubt, the evidence of PW1 also. [Para 29] [472-B-E]
5. In the circumstances of the case, having regard to the fact that two courts have found the ground of non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 established and the facts as noted by this Court it is not a fit case to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. [Para 31] [472-F-G]
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.