"Courts Have Time Machines, For Cases Remain Constant Decades On End, But Not The Clients Or Causes": Bombay HC On Delay [Read Judgment]

Justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu who heard the revision application held that it was only natural that two children of the original owner secured employment as three decades had passed since the original owner sought eviction of the tenants. He said-

"In Dickensian diction, innumerable children may have been born into the cause; innumerable young people may have married into it; innumerable old people may have died out of it. The little of the plaintiffs may have been promised a new toy cycle when the case is settled, but may have grown up pending the case, possessed a real cycle, ridden it through his life, and ridden away into the other world.

A case can be perennial but not the life, nor its needs. As it were, courts have time machines, for cases remain constant decades on end. But not the clients or causes.

True, two of the many children have secured employment. But that is hardly surprising in three decades and three years. That has not taken away the owners' need completely. That development has not eclipsed their need, so to say".

Case Background

According to the 30-page judgment, the original owner of the said property (landlord) let a piece of property (two shops) to one tenant 'generations ago'. Both the original landlord and the original tenant passed away. Their legal heirs succeeded on either side. In 1986, the wife Rukminibai and seven children of the landlord filed a suit to evict the tenants, on the grounds of bona fide requirement and arrears of rent.

During the trial, the owners gave up their claim on the arrears of rent, but they persisted with the bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Eventually, in 2001, the trial Court decreed the suit.

Aggrieved by the judgment, tenants filed an appeal before the small cause court which was also dismissed. Thereafter, three defendants (heirs of the owner), died. The owners did bring on record the legal representatives (LRs) of two of the deceased defendants but failed to bring on record the LRs of the 3rd defendant.

Eventually, the appellate Bench of the small cause court dismissed the Appeal. The judgment was then challenged in the present civil revision application filed by the tenants.

Submissions

Advocate Rajesh Patil appeared on behalf of the applicants and Advocate Vikram Sathe represented the owners (respondents).

Patil submitted that while their appeal was still pending the owner's inducted a new tenant into the adjacent shop. Had there been any bona fide requirement, owners would have used that property, for themselves, instead of letting it out to a third party. Thus, the plea of bona fide requirement is false, Patil said.

It was asserted on behalf of the tenants that for many years, the landlords kept two rooms near the leased property locked. This again exposes the owners' claim there was any bona fide requirement to accommodate themselves and carry on business in the leased property, Patil argued while submitting photographs to illustrate his point.

While Vikram Sathe argued that no new tenancy had been created by the owners. According to him, what was shown in the photograph is the 'Veranda' that provides access to the rest of the property. Without the landlord's leave, at some point in time, if some street vendor stood there and conducted business, that should not be termed a tenancy the owners have created, Sathe said.

Judgment

After examining various precedents relevant to the said case, including apex court's judgement in PV Pappanna vs K Padmanabhaiah and M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & ors vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors, also the Bombay High Court's judgement in Dr. Vinayak Trimbak Wale vs Tarachand Hiralal Shet Marwadi, Court rejected the applicant's submissions and noted –

"I see no plea taken in the CA about the suppression of a material fact: two of the children getting employment. But it was argued. I reckon among the many children of the owners, two getting employment in thirty years hardly affects their case prospects. Nor does it amount to a material suppression."

"In Dickensian diction, innumerable children may have been born into the cause; innumerable young people may have married into it; innumerable old people may have died out of it. The little of the plaintiffs may have been promised a new toy cycle when the case is settled, but may have grown up pending the case, possessed a real cycle, ridden it through his life, and ridden away into the other world. A case can be perennial but not the life, nor its needs. As it were, courts have time machines, for cases remain constant decades on end. But not the clients or causes"

Further, Justice Naidu observed-

"What was leased out is a business structure: two rooms. In about six or seven decades, neither family remained constant. And the available tenants have been brought on record. They are tenants by operation of law; they have no independent right. So, one represents another unless that another establishes there is a conflict of interest among them. Here a couple of children of one of the deceased co-tenants not being impleaded, I am afraid, cannot be fatal."

Finally, Court concluded-

"Thus, viewed from any perspective, the applicants have failed to establish that this Court should overturn the concurrent findings by exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. The case deserves dismissal, and it is dismissed with costs."

Click here to download the Judgment