Not Necessary For All Tenants In Joint Tenancy To Find Alternate Accommodation For Landlord To Recover Possession U/S 13 Bombay Rents Act: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not necessary under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 that all joint tenants must find alternative accommodation so that landlord can recover possession of rented premises.Justice AS Supehia observed,"The landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is...
The Gujarat High Court has held that it is not necessary under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 that all joint tenants must find alternative accommodation so that landlord can recover possession of rented premises.
Justice AS Supehia observed,
"The landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant, after coming into operation of this Act, has built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence and an eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. If these persons become tenants in common or joint tenants, it is not the requirement of the law that all the tenants should have built accommodation for their residence."
The Plaintiffs/Respondents (landlords) had sought the peaceful possession of the suit property and mesne profits from the Defendants (tenants). The trial court decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and directed and the possession of suit property to be handed over to them. Aggrieved with the same, an appeal was filed with the Appellate bench of Small Causes Court which affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In the instant revisional application, the Defendants contested that there was no evidence they had acquired a suitable alternative accommodation. The decree of eviction could only be issued when the Plaintiffs were able to prove and establish that all tenants had alternative suitable accommodation. Further, the issue whether the other defendants were also joint tenants was not addressed.
Per contra, the Plaintiffs/Respondents submitted that this Court could not exercise its discretion u/s 29(2) of the Act due to limited scope. The suit is decreed in favour of Plaintiffs u/s 13(1)(1) of the Rent Act by the trial court on the ground that the Defendants had found a suitable residence for themselves, as well. Additionally, Defendants No. 1 and 3 were residing in the premises purchased by them while the remaining were not joint tenants. Hence, the trial court had not framed an issue in this regard.
Perusing these contentions, the High Court identified that the primary issue worth consideration was whether the Defendants/Applicants could be evicted as u/s 13(1)(1) of the Rent Act on the ground that the other tenants had acquired alternative accommodation.
Answering this question in the affirmative, the High Court observed
"Defendant no.1 is residing in the property purchased in his wife's name and defendant no.3 has purchased the property in his own name. Defendant no.5 is residing with his wife in a flat. Neither the defendants no.2 and 4 nor the other defendants have adduced any evidence that they could not have been accommodated in the alternative accommodations."
Accordingly, the High Court declined to interfere with the orders of the trial court and the Appellate Court.
Case No.: C/CRA/610/2018
Case Title: AZIZ FAZLEHUSEIN KARAKA v/s BATUL ABBASBHAI RANGWALA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 382