Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Decree shall be drawn up accordingly."

12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court in the present proceedings.

13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court has made the following submissions:-

(i) The appellate Court has erred in recording a finding that the petitioner had acquired alternate vacant possession of suitable premises. It is submitted that the suit premises were let out by the respondent to the petitioner on a composite tenancy i.e. for residence as well as business. It is submitted that the decree on the ground of acquiring alternate suitable premises is a decree under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent At 1947, which is not applicable to a composite tenancy as the same is restricted to tenancy which is given for residential purposes. To support this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of "Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani v. Durgashankar G. Shroff & Ors.1,".

2. 1978 BCI 68 Aarti Palkar/ pvr 12 WP 6464.1999.odt Kantilal Maganlal Parekh & Anr.3, (iii) Narayan Bansilal (deceased) v. Bright Brothers & Ors.4, (iv) Ratanlal Bansilal & Ors. V. Kishorilal Goenka & Ors.5, (v) Om Pal v. Anand Swarup6 ."

(iv) It is next submitted that the decree of the Appellate Court tantamounts to splitting of tenancy. The Appellate Court having rejected the respondent's case of bona-fide requirement, has rejected decree qua the premises used by the petitioner for commercial purposes, and a decree has been granted by the appellate Court in respect of the rear rooms of the suit premises which was used by the petitioner for residential premises. Such a decree is not permissible as it tantamounts to splitting of tenancy. It is submitted that a composite tenancy entitles the tenant to use any part of premises for residential or commercial purposes and the same can be used inter-changeably. The Court could not pass a partial decree of this nature which literally splits the tenancy. Unless law permits, no Court can pass a decree thereby splitting the tenancy. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decisions in "T.S. Subramanian (Dr.) v. Andhra Bank Ltd.7, and S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand 8.

(vi) The learned trial Court was not correct to apply the principles of dominant and servient user as it was not germane to the issue involved in the facts of the case as the tenancy was clearly defined for a composite purpose and the tenant had admitted that the front room was used for commercial purpose and the rear two rooms were used for residential purpose.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

28. There can be no dispute when the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this

11. 1979 Bom.R.C.35 Aarti Palkar/ pvr 23 WP 6464.1999.odt Court in Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani (supra), contends that the provisions of Section13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act would not be applicable when the tenancy is a composite tenancy namely commercial and residential. In this regard, the findings of the learned appellate Judge on the provision of Section 13(1)(l) being point no.4 as discussed in the judgment of the appellate Court cannot be sustained. However, as noted above, there was no impediment for the application of Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, in the facts in hand when the respondent had come with a specific case asserting application of Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. In fact, the decree granted by the appellate Court only pertains to the residential premises, which attracts Section 13(1)(a) of the Act, and thus is required to be sustained on the respondent proving the grounds falling under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. This for the reason that there was plentiful evidence on record to indicate the permanent structural alteration as undertaken by the petitioner by changing the nature and character of the suit premises from three rooms to two rooms.