1967 (7) TMI 137 - HC - Indian Laws

Trustees Subject to Comparative Hardship Analysis for Evictions Under Bombay Rent Act, HC Rules.

Kanasara Abudulrehman Sadruddin Versus Trustees of the Maniar Jamat Ahmedabad, Musaji Abdulkarim and Ors.

Kanasara Abudulrehman Sadruddin Versus Trustees of the Maniar Jamat Ahmedabad, Musaji Abdulkarim and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to trustees of public charitable trusts.2. Requirement of trustees to prove the reasonableness and bona fide nature of their claim for possession.3. Comparative hardship consideration under Section 13(2) of the Rent Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 13(2) of the Rent Act to Trustees of Public Charitable Trusts:The primary issue in this case was whether Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the 'Rent Act') applies when trustees of a public charitable trust seek possession of premises from a tenant. The petitioner argued that trustees should be subject to the same comparative hardship analysis as other landlords under Section 13(2). The respondents contended that the 1953 amendment to Clause (g) of Section 13(1) was intended to exempt trustees from this requirement, allowing them to obtain possession upon proving that the premises were needed for the trust's purposes.The court held that Section 13(2) of the Rent Act applies to all landlords, including trustees of public charitable trusts. It was noted that the 1953 amendment to Clause (g) did not manifest an intention to exempt trustees from the comparative hardship analysis. The court emphasized that Section 13(2) requires consideration of the hardship to both landlord and tenant before passing a decree for eviction, regardless of the landlord's status as a trustee.2. Requirement to Prove Reasonableness and Bona Fide Nature of Claim:Before the 1953 amendment, all landlords, including trustees, had to prove the reasonableness and bona fide nature of their requirement for personal occupation. The amendment added a provision specifically for trustees of public charitable trusts, stating that they need only prove that the premises are required for the purposes of the trust. The court clarified that this amendment did not exempt trustees from the comparative hardship analysis under Section 13(2).The court reasoned that while the amendment relieved trustees from proving the reasonableness and bona fide nature of their requirement, it did not indicate an intention to exempt them from the comparative hardship analysis. The court concluded that trustees must still undergo the comparative hardship test to obtain possession.3. Comparative Hardship Consideration:The court explained that Section 13(2) comes into play after a landlord has made out a ground for eviction under Clause (g) of Section 13(1). This section requires the court to weigh the hardship of the landlord against that of the tenant before passing a decree for eviction. The court emphasized that this analysis applies to all landlords, including trustees of public charitable trusts.The court rejected the argument that the legislature intended to exempt trustees from the comparative hardship analysis. It noted that the language of Section 13(2) does not support such an exemption and that the legislature had the opportunity to amend this section but chose not to do so. The court concluded that trustees must be subject to the same comparative hardship analysis as other landlords.Conclusion:The court set aside the decrees of the trial and appellate courts and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court was directed to frame an issue regarding the comparative hardship under Section 13(2) of the Rent Act, record evidence on this issue, and dispose of the suit accordingly. The findings on other issues were not to be reopened. No order as to costs was made.