Summary
Tenants and another occupant challenged concurrent eviction findings and the rejection of an objection in execution. The Supreme Court found no perversity in the findings of default and non-user. The tenants’ sisters were not shown to qualify for succession to the business tenancy. The other occupant’s belated agricultural-tenancy claim lacked pleadings and proof establishing the asserted statutory right.
Issues
- Whether omission of the tenants’ sisters defeated the eviction suit.
- Whether the asserted agricultural tenancy rendered the decree a nullity in execution.
- Whether the concurrent eviction findings warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 5(11)(c)(ii), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947Family members carrying on the business with the deceased tenant take priority; the alternative category of heirs did not assist the sisters on the evidence in this case. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- The concurrent findings establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, default and non-user rested on oral and documentary evidence and were not perverse. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The sisters’ participation in the business or entitlement under the alternative statutory category was not established. Their belated claim did not defeat the proceedings against defendants 1 and 2. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The agricultural-tenancy objection had not been pleaded in the suit. The revenue entry and an unidentified reference to a hut did not establish the claimed tenancy, its continuation on tillers’ day or the resulting statutory right. The execution objection was properly rejected on these facts. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Result
Both appeals dismissed without costs. The eviction judgment and rejection of the agricultural-tenancy objection in execution were left undisturbed. Pending applications were disposed of.