1996 (10) TMI 506 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Rights under Bombay Rents Act, Emphasizes Fair Trial

MR. ANTHONY C. LEO Versus NANDIAL BAL KRISHNAN & ORS.

MR. ANTHONY C. LEO Versus NANDIAL BAL KRISHNAN & ORS. - 1997 AIR 173, 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 669, 1996 (11) SCC 376, 1996 (9) JT 672, 1996 (7) SCALE 829 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the appellant's constructions (lofts and box type stands) on the premises.2. Legality of the appellant's operation of a permit room serving liquor.3. Receiver's authority to seek eviction and enforce property preservation measures.4. Appellant's rights under the Bombay Rents Act.5. Court's jurisdiction to pass summary orders affecting tenant's rights.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Appellant's Constructions:The appellant contended that the lofts and box type stands for storing gas cylinders and air conditioning units existed before his tenancy began in 1970. Supporting affidavits from individuals associated with the restaurant since its inception corroborated this claim. The appellant argued that these constructions were necessary for the operation of the restaurant and complied with Fire Brigade Rules. Despite these assertions, the learned Single Judge found the constructions unauthorized and directed their removal.2. Legality of the Appellant's Operation of a Permit Room Serving Liquor:The receiver reported that the appellant was operating a permit room and serving liquor, which was allegedly against the lease terms with the Greater Bombay Municipal Corporation. The appellant countered that he had a valid license for the permit room and that the Municipal Corporation was willing to amend the lease terms to allow liquor service upon payment. The learned Single Judge, however, found this activity unauthorized and ordered it to cease.3. Receiver's Authority to Seek Eviction and Enforce Property Preservation Measures:The appellant argued that the receiver, appointed in a suit for dissolution of partnership and distribution of assets, could not bypass the statutory process for eviction under the Bombay Rents Act. The receiver's role was to preserve the property, not to adjudicate tenant rights. The learned Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the receiver's actions, emphasizing the court's duty to preserve property in custodia legis.4. Appellant's Rights Under the Bombay Rents Act:The appellant asserted that his rights as a tenant were protected under the Bombay Rents Act, which required any eviction to be processed through the Court of Small Causes. The appellant contended that the receiver's actions violated these protections. The learned Single Judge dismissed these arguments, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.5. Court's Jurisdiction to Pass Summary Orders Affecting Tenant's Rights:The Supreme Court acknowledged that a court-appointed receiver must preserve property but stressed that this does not annul third-party rights. The court emphasized that a tenant's statutory protections under the Rent Act cannot be overridden by summary proceedings. The court held that disputes involving tenant rights should be adjudicated through appropriate legal actions, not through summary orders based on receiver reports.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders. It held that the receiver could not bypass statutory eviction procedures and that the appellant's rights under the Bombay Rents Act must be respected. The court directed that any action against the appellant for alleged unauthorized constructions or illegal activities should be pursued through appropriate legal channels, ensuring the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective claims, leaving them to be adjudicated in proper legal proceedings.