Central Information Commission
Rustom Farhad Ginwalla vs Mumbai Port Trust on 6 May, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MPTRS/A/2017/180687/SD
Rustom Farhad Ginwalla ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Mumbai Port Trust,
Estate Department,
3rd Floor, Vijaydeep,
S V Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai - 400001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2017
CPIO replied on : 06/07/2017
First appeal filed on : 01/08/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 29/08/2017
Second Appeal dated : 27/11/2017
Date of Hearing : 25/04/2019
Date of Decision : 03/05/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to the leasehold property R.R. 1236 at A.R. Estate and building that stands on it.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Ms Yogini Gada , Advocate on phone.1
Respondent: Not present. (CPIO sent his written submissions during the pendency of the decision via email stating his regret for reaching the video conferencing venue late and submitted his arguments for the case) Third Party: Ms. Zenobia Rohinton Poonawalla on phone.
CPIO in his written submissions submitted that the information sought in the RTI Application was denied under Section 8(1)(j) & (e) of RTI Act as the property under reference had been let out on Joint Tenancy to F.N Ginwalla and Smt. Zenobia R.Poonawala. That, since, Appellant is not a lessee of the said property, consent of the Joint Lessees was sought under Section 11(1) of RTI Act, while F.N. Ginwalla gave his "no objection" to the disclosure of information vide letter dated 25.06.2017, the other Joint Lessee Zenobia R. Poonawala denied her consent for the disclosure of information vide her letter dated 24.06.2017.
The third party, Zenobia R. Poonawala stated that as on date she is the sole lessee of the property under reference as the other Joint Tenant who was her father, F.N Ginwalla passed away on 01.02.2019. She further strongly objected to the disclosure of the information to the Appellant as it would amount to invasion of her privacy.
Appellant stated that as on the date of reply on the RTI Application, the other joint lessee had given his consent for disclosure of the information. He further desired to bring on record certain points regarding the issues with respect to the ownership of the property under reference.
Commission advised both the Appellant and the third party to send their detailed written submissions for adjudication in the matter.
Decision Commission received written submissions of the third party, Zenobia R. Poonawala vide an email after the hearing was concluded, wherein she has stated that since 1998, her father F.N Ginwalla and herself have been Joint Lessees of the Leasehold property from Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) i.e the land and building, Rutton Manor Building, situated at 7-A, Graden Road, Apollo Reclamation, Mumbai, R.R No. 1236. That, her father passed away on 01.02.2019, and since then she is the sole lessee of the said property by survivorship. That, she had conveyed her dissent for disclosure of information to the CPIO; Chief Law Officer 2 File No : CIC/MPTRS/A/2017/180687/SD as well as Estate Manager, MbPT vide letters dated 24.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 stating that the information is related to her privacy and not to any public activity, rather disclosure of the documents related to the Leasehold property would be misused by the Appellant for his vested interests, detrimental to her interests, in several litigations pending between them. That, the Appellant being a 'tenant simplicter' (presently statutory tenant), of the building standing on Leasehold property, does not entitle him to interfere and inspect registered documents/files executed/exchanged between the Lessor and Lessee, particularly in the face of strong objection by her. That, the Appellant is also her brother, who has made several structural additions/alterations/amalgamation in his tenanted flats of Rutton Manor, contrary to provisions of law and terms of tenancy, and is now facing eviction cases, and has been trying to approach MbPT for alleged NOC to regularize the same. Lastly, she has reiterated that Appellant is only pursuing his vested personal interest by way of the instant RTI Application and it is not related to any public interest.
Commission received written submissions sent by the Appellant via email on 02.05.2019, wherein he has listed a chronology of events stating that on Dec. 14, 2015, F.N Ginwalla wrote to the Estate Manager, MbPT stating that he is appointing the Appellant as the constituted Attorney for the matters concerning the said property and also putting on record that Rustom and Rashna are named as heirs in his last WILL for his 55% leasehold interests in the building. That, on 02.03.2016, Zenobia R. Poonawala filed a RTI Application for inspection and copies of documents pertaining to the said property and the same was provided by the CPIO without seeking consent of the Joint lessee, F.N Ginwalla. That, on 09.11.2016, Rashna Ginwalla filed a RTI Application for the same purpose, and she was also provided inspection without the consent of either of the Joint Lessees. That, while he filed the instant RTI Application, the CPIO exercised bias for reasons best known to him and denied the information citing the dissent of one of the Joint Lessees. Further, Appellant has made a brief statement regarding the status of the Respondent office as a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act and that he is entitled to ask for the documents held by the said public authority as per Section 6(1) of RTI Act. That, he is a co-landlord of the averred building and a tenant of three flats and one garage therein, thus matters and decisions with respect to the building affect him personally in his capacity as owner as well as a tenant. In this regard, he has enclosed copy of rent receipts. That, F.N Ginwalla and Zenobia R. Poonawala were tenants of the said building in the proportion of 3 55% and 45% respectively. By and under Gift Deed dated 11 10.2017 (rectified on 24.10.2017), F.N Ginwalla transferred 55% leasehold interest to him to the extent of 45% and to Rashna to the extent of 10%. That, the said Gift Deed has not been challenged before any Court. That, F.N Ginwalla also made an application on 09.11.2017 to record the names of the Appellant and Rashna as the lessees of MbPT in the proportion of 45% and 10% respectively. However, MbPT failed to respond to the said application and F.N Ginwalla wrote a reminder letter dated 27.11.2017 requesting them to do the needful as per the earlier application of 09.11.2017. That, since MbPT failed to respond to the application made by F.N Ginwalla, a Writ Petition No.812 of 2017 was filed by him, the Appellant and Rashna before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, and the Court directed MbPT to grant a hearing to the concerned parties and decide the application in accordance with law. While on 06.10.2018, MbPT rejected F.N Ginwalla's application dated 09.11.2017 and 27.11.2017 on the grounds that F.N Ginwalla and Zenobia are joint lessees of MbPT and F.N Ginwalla cannot transfer his interest in Rutton Manor without the consent of Zenobia. That, subsequently, he and Rashna have filed a Writ Petition No. 479 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the said order on the grounds that inter alia, F.N Ginwalla and Zenobia are not joint tenants but tenants in common and therefore F.N Ginwalla could transfer his interest in Rutton Manor without the consent of Zenobia. That, the said petition is sub-judice and all rights are pending adjudication.
Commission after having considered the submissions of all the parties i.e the CPIO, Appellant and the third party observes that the contentions of the Appellant are based on the dispute going on regarding the ownership of property under reference. While, under RTI Act, information is based on the records available with the public authority and in this case, CPIO has categorically maintained that as per their records it is leased out on joint ownership of F.N Ginwalla and Zenobia. It is immaterial to the case that the CPIO has previously provided the same information to Rashna without seeking consent of the joint lessees. It is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the instant case is based on a family property dispute and adjudication on the merits of issues concerning the said subject is outside the purview of the Commission under RTI Act. Appellant's contention that at the time of reply on the RTI Application, F.N Ginwalla had accorded his consent to the disclosure of information does not invalidate the dissent accorded by Zenobia, who as per records is the Joint Lessee; hence Commission has to consider the objection of the said third party.
4File No : CIC/MPTRS/A/2017/180687/SD Commission does not find any scope of intervention with the decision of the CPIO to seek consent of the third parties as the information sought indeed pertains to the privacy of these third parties and Appellant has not argued any larger public interest in its disclosure.
In view of the foregoing, Commission upholds the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.05.06 11:44:20 IST
5