Dismissed

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. v. Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2006WP/1655/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a decree for eviction. Upholding concurrent findings of lower courts, the Court held the sub-tenancy was unlawful and the plaintiff proved bonafide requirement for expanding office space. Petitioners were granted three months to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners given three months to vacate upon undertaking and continuance of compensation.

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. Vs Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2006

¶5

 Smt. Amar Kaur Suri wd/o Trilok Singh

¶6

 Hukum Singh Suri and Anr. ...Petitioners

¶7

 Versus

¶8

 Shapurbaug Consumers Coop. Society

¶9

 Ltd. and ors. ...Respondents

¶10

 Mr.M.P.Vashi for petitioners

¶11

 Mr.P.S.Dani i/b K.P.Gala for respondent no.1

¶12

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶13

 DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2006

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶16

 Perused the record.

¶17

 2. The petitioner-sub-tenant has preferred this
 petition against the judgment and order passed by the
 lower appellate court dated 28.10.2005 dismissing his

¶18

 : 2 :

¶19

 appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by
 the trial court dated 18.10.2003 decreeing the suit for
 eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.

¶20

 3. The respondent-plaintiff is a Consumer

¶21

 Cooperative Society Ltd., having its office at Shop
 No.3-4 situated at Shapur Baug, 372, Vithalbhai Patel
 Road, Bombay 400 004. The plaintiffs are the monthly
 tenant in respect of the said shop premises and defendant
 no.1 is the sub-tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of
 the rear portion of the shop no.4 admeasuring 10 x 10 ft.
 on a monthly rent of Rs.115/= per month. The plaintiffs
 claim that they required the suit premises reasonably and
 bonafide for their use and occupation in order to expand
 the activities of the society. It was further alleged
 that the defendant no.1 was not in occupation of the suit
 premises and had unlawfully sublet the same and it was
 given on leave and licence to defendant no.2 who was not
 occupant. On this ground the suit came to be filed for
 eviction of the defendants.

¶22

 . The defendants contested the suit, inter alia,
 denying the allegations submitting that the requirement
 alleged by the plaintiffs was not bonafide. The

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 allegations regarding alleged unlawful subletting to
 defendant no.2 was also challenged and it was submitted
 that the defendant no.1 was in occupation of the premises
 and on such and other ground the suit was sought to be
 dismissed.

¶25

 4. The learned trial judge after hearing both the
 parties and on the basis of available evidence came to
 the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved that the
 defendant no.1 had unlawfully inducted the defendant no.2
 in the suit premises. The issue of bonafide requirement
 was, however, held not proved by the trial court.

¶26

 . The appeal was carried to the lower appellate
 court, who after hearing both the parties concurred with
 the findings recorded by the trial court on the issue of
 illegal subletting and also came to the conclusion that
 the evidence on record sufficient to hold that the
 plaintiff had proved his bonafide requirement of the suit
 premises for expansion of his office and passed decree on
 that count also and dismissed the appeal.

¶27

 5. At the outset, it may be noted that the learned
 counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that the

¶28

 : 4 :

¶29

 evidence on record was sufficient to show that the

¶30

 defendant no.2 came to be inducted in the suit premises
 prior to the 1.2.1973 and therefore, he was protected as
 sub-tenant and was in lawful possession. In support of
 his submission the learned counsel sought to put reliance
 on Apex Court ruling in the case of Anandram Chandanmal
 Mount and Anr. Vs. Bansilal Chunilal Kabra reported in
 AIR 2000 SC 288. On perusal of the said judgment I must
 note that there cannot be two opinions regarding the
 ratio laid down by the apex court in the said ruling to
 the effect that the sub-tenant inducted before 1973
 becomes direct tenant from the date of determination of
 the tenancy of main tenant. However, the said ruling
 cannot be said to be applicable to the present case
 because it is an admitted as well as evidential position
 that the defendant no.1 itself is a sub-tenant of the
 plaintiff and therefore, the defendant no.2 cannot be
 said to be protected by virtue of the amended law in the
 year 1973.

¶31

 6. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded
 that the defendant no.2 is unlawful occupation of the
 suit premises on the basis of available evidence. The
 courts below have relied upon the admission of defendant

¶32

 : 5 :

¶33

 no.1 Kohli in order to hold that it was an admitted
 position that the defendant no.1 was not in suit premises
 since the year 1972 and defendant no.1 has been carrying
 on business elsewhere in some other name. This obviously
 notes the conclusion that the defendant no.2 is an
 unlawful occupation of the suit premises and as such the
 concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are
 seen to be legal and proper and therefore, it would brook
 no interference.

¶34

 7. So far as the issue regarding reasonable and
 bonafide requirement of the suit premises is concerned,
 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
 approach of the lower court was wrong to the sense that
 the onus was upon the defendant to show the malafide
 requirement of the plaintiff. However, even if we keep
 this observation away, still the evidence on record is
 seen to be quite ample in order to hold that the
 plaintiff has proved his bonafide and reasonable
 requirement of the suit premises for expansion of his
 office activities. The evidence of the plaintiff clearly
 shows that the premises available to them at present is
 only 300 to 400 sq. ft. from where they are running
 shop and they required the suit premises for storing the

¶35

 : 6 :

¶36

 goods as well as conducting meetings etc. and for the
 office purpose. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
 said that the plaintiffs have not established his
 reasonable and bonafide requirement.

¶37

 8. Be as it may, the fact remains that the lower
 appellate court has found that the suit is deserve to be
 decreed on both the counts as noted above and reasoning
 adopted and findings recorded by both the courts below
 appear to be just, legal and proper on the point of
 subletting and as such I hold that the petition is devoid
 of any merits.

¶38

 9. In the result the petition stands dismissed with
 no order as to costs.

¶39

 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the
 petitioners sought some time to vacate the suit premises.
 In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioners
 are given time of three calender months from today to
 vacate the suit premises on condition that the
 petitioners as well as all adult members of their family
 shall furnish an Undertaking to that effect that they
 shall not crate any third party interest in the suit

¶40

 : 7 :

¶41

 property during their occupancy and they shall continue
 to pay the compensation to the respondents as agreed.
 The undertaking to be furnished within two weeks from the
 date of this order.

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. v. Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Kaur Suri and Anr. v. Shapurbaug Consumers Co-Op. Society Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Subhash Dshala Kinjle Vs Smt. Indra Rani Uggarsen

Shrinath v. Chaturvedi and Anr. Vs Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani and Anr.

M/S. Chittaranjan Housing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Prithviraj Badriprasad Morya

Mohan Mahadev Janvalkar and Ors. Vs Rajaram Ramji Kadam and Ors.

Arun Janaji Jadhav Vs Bachan Vasudeo Basushi Chaurasiya and Ors.

Dr.Keki Minocher Mistry Vs Helvetia Tours and Travel Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.