Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Taking up first the history of the litigation in regard to Ananar Niwas Private Limited it appears that Anand Niwas Private Limited filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Ahmedabad on 25 June 1960 for a declaration that the decree for ejectment obtained by the trustees against Maneklal Mafatlal was not binding on Anand Niwas Private Limited and for an injunction to restrain the trustees from executing the decree for ejectment against Anand Niwas Private Limited. Immediately after filing the suit Anand Niwas Private Limited applied for an interim injunction to restrain execution of the decree for ejectment and on the application an ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court. The application for interim injunction was thereafter heard and the trial Court confirmed the interim injunction and directed the suit to be expedited. The trial Court ultimately at the hearing of the suit came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the Court of Small Causes was the only Court which could entertain and dispose of the suit having regard to the provisions of the Rent Act. The trial Court accordingly ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was thereafter presented in the Court of Small Causes and the suit was numbered 2814 of 1961. On the application of Anand Niwas Private Limited an ad interim injunction was granted by the Court of Small Causes on 4th September 1961 but after hearing the parties the Court of Small Causes vacated the ad interim injunction and dismissed the application on 19th September 1961. Anand Niwas Private Limited thereupon filed an appeal against the order dismissing the application for interim injunction and immediately after filing the appeal Anand Niwas Private Limited applied for an interim injunction restraining the trustees from executing the decree for ejectment pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Anand Niwas Private Limited succeeded in obtaining an ad interim injunction in the application but the at interim injunction was vacated by the Assistant Judge Ahmedabad on 11th October 1961 after hearing the parties. The result was that no interim injunction was granted to Anand Niwas Private Limited restraining the trustees from executing the decree for ejectment during the pendency of the appeal. Anand Niwas Private Limited thereupon filed Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1961 in this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge dismissing its application for interim injunction pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. At the hearing of this Revision Application I pointed out to Mr. I.M. Nanavaty learned advocate appearing on behalf of Anand Niwas Private Limited that the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge dismissing the application of Anand Niwas Private Limited for an interim injunction during the pendency of the appeal was an appealable order and that no Revision Application could therefore be maintained against such order. Mr. I.M. Nanavaty thereupon applied that the Revision Application be converted into an appeal and I accordingly directed that the Revision Application be treated as an appeal and the Revision Application was under the circumstances argued as an appeal and is being disposed of as an appeal.

So far as Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal are concerned the litigations in regard to them followed similar course with a little variation. The trustees as I have pointed out above were obstructed in obtaining possession of the portions of the ground floor of the premises in the respective occupation of Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal and the trustees therefore filed two applications under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure one against Glamour Cleaners and the other against Vithaldas Panchal for removal of the obstruction caused by them. These applications were allowed and orders were made by the Court of Small Causes directing Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal to remove the obstruction caused by them. Against the orders made by the Court of Small Causes on-those applications Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal filed two separate Revision Applications in the Court of the District Judge Ahmedabad. These Revision Applications were dismissed by the learned District Judge. Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal thereupon preferred Civil Revision Applications Nos. 478 of 1961 and 479 of 1961 respectively in this Court complaining against the dismissal of their respective Revision Applications by the learned District Judge. Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal also tiled two separate suits under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the trustees suit No. 106 of 1901 being the suit filed by Glamour Cleaners and suit No. 101 of 1961 being the suit filed by Vithaldas Panchal for a declaration that the trustees were not entitled to recover possession of the permises in the respective occupation of Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal in execution of the ejectment decree obtained against Maneklal and for an injunction to restrain the trustees from executing the decree for ejectment. If I might say so history repeated itself in these two cases. Immediately after filing the suits Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal applied for an interim injunction and on their applications an ad interim injunction was granted but subsequently after hearing the parties the ad interim injunction was vacated and applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal thereupon filed appeals in the Court of the District Judge Ahmedabad against the orders dismissing their applications for interim injunction. But the appeals were also dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge. Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal thereupon filed Civil Revision Application No. 784 of 1961 and Civil Revision Application No. 785 of 1961 against the orders passed by the learned Assistant Judge dismissing their respective appeals. Since all these matters involved the same question of law they were all heard together and are now being disposed of by a common judgment. Before I proceed further I may state that after the matters were argued for sometime Mr. J.M. Shah learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Glamour cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal applied for withdrawal of Civil Revision Applications Nos. 478 of 1961 and 479 of 1961 since Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal having already filed suits under Order 21 Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was no point in pursuing those Revision Applications. Civil Revision Applications Nos. 478 of 1961 and 479 of 1961 were accordingly allowed to be withdrawn. The result therefore is that only Civil Revision Application No. 751 of 1961 (which has been converted into an appeal) and Civil Revision Applications Nos. 784 of 1961 and 785 of 1961 now remain to be disposed of by this judgment.

For all these reasons I take the view that a statutory tenant under the Rent Act is not entitled to sublet the whole or part of the premises. In taking this view I may say with Mackinnon L.J. that he must be a bold if not a conceited man who can feel confidence in forming or expressing an opinion on any one of the innumerable problems that arise out of the Rent Act but having groped my way about that chaos of verbal darkness I have come to the conclusion with all becoming diffidence that the contention urged on behalf of the alleged sub-tenants is not well founded. This being the position it is clear that Maneklal Mafatlal was not entitled to sublet the different portions of the premises to Anand Niwas Private Limited Glamour Cleaners and Vithaldas Panchal and that these alleged sub-tenants are not entitled to any protection under Section 14 of the Rent Act. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to decide the second question raised by Mr. M.M. Shah that in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act any sub-tenancy created by Maneklal Mafatlal in favour of Anand Niwas Private Limited Glamour Cleaners or Vithaldas Panchal was subject to the result of the ejectment suit during the pendency of which the sub-tenancy was created and could not therefore be put forward in answer to the execution of the decree for ejectment.