Summary
The plaintiff obtained an appellate decree declaring her tenant of a Kurla room and directing the landlord to hand over possession. In execution, the appellant objected under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. He relied on two agreements of the same day during the pendency of the appeal: an assignment for Rs 9.4 lakh by the person in possession claiming to be the lawful tenant, and a fresh tenancy granted by the landlord. The Court held that Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 bars a tenant from assigning his interest unless there is a contract to the contrary. A landlord may ratify such a transfer later, but ratification requires knowledge of the act, and the landlord's agreement neither referred to nor approved the tenant's assignment. His agreement also contradicted the tenant's claim to have handed it over. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an assignment of tenancy by a tenant of premises governed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, without a contract to the contrary, could found an objection to execution of a decree for possession.
- Whether the landlord's same-day agreement granting tenancy to the objector amounted to ratification of the tenant's assignment or independently supported the objection.
Provisions considered
- Section 26, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999A tenant cannot sublet, give on licence or assign his interest unless a contract to the contrary exists. No such contract or ratification was shown, so the tenant's assignment to the appellant could not stand. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 24)
- Sections 196 and 198, Indian Contract Act, 1872Ratification is approval of another's act made with knowledge of it. The landlord's agreement made no reference to the tenant's assignment and so could not ratify it. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 23, 24)
- Section 52 (Bombay amendment), Transfer of Property Act, 1882Whether the amended lis pendens provision, requiring a registered notice, applied to the premises was a question of fact not raised in the courts below, so it could not help the appellant. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16)
Held
- Under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, unlike the general rule in the Transfer of Property Act, a tenant may not sublet or assign his interest unless there is a contract to the contrary. The appellant's assignment from the person claiming to be the lawful tenant was unlawful on its face without such a contract. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17)
- A landlord may ratify a tenant's transfer even after it is made, as the Bombay Full Bench held. But ratification presupposes knowledge of the act ratified. The landlord's agreement did not refer to the tenant's assignment and purported to create a tenancy in his own right, so there was no ratification. (¶¶ 12, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24)
- The two same-day agreements were irreconcilable. One said the tenant was in possession and handed it over for Rs 9.4 lakh, the other that the landlord was in possession. The landlord could not create a new tenancy without extinguishing the existing one, so the appellant's case was illogical and legally untenable. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- The appellant's reliance on the Bombay amendment to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, requiring a registered notice of lis pendens, raised questions of fact on location and notice that he had not pleaded below. (¶¶ 14, 16)
Result
Appeals dismissed, upholding the rejection of the appellant's objection to execution; no order as to costs.