Co-Owner Is 'Landlord' Under Bombay Rent Act, Can Maintain Eviction Suit Without Exclusive Title: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a co-owner of a property qualifies as a “landlord” under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and is therefore entitled to maintain eviction proceedings even without exclusive title or formal partition of the tenanted premises.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan set aside the Bombay High Court's decision that had overturned the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in an eviction dispute, where the appellant-plaintiff, a co-owner and co-landlord of the tenanted premises, had sought eviction of the respondent-tenants on the ground of bona fide residential requirement for her family needs.

The High Court had reversed the eviction decree in civil revision proceedings on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish exclusive ownership over the premises so as to qualify as a landlord competent to maintain the eviction suit.

Restoring the trial court's eviction decree in the Appellant's favour, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan observed that co-ownership itself creates an entitlement to receive rent, which is sufficient to confer the status of “landlord” under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Act”).

The Court rejected the tenant's argument that the appellant lacked exclusive ownership over the suit premises and therefore could not seek eviction. It held that the statutory definition of “landlord” is broad enough to include co-owners and persons entitled to receive rent on behalf of others.

Section 5(3) of the Act defines landlord as “any person who is for the time being, receiving, or entitled to receive, rent in respect of any premises whether on his own account or on account, or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person or….”

In light of this definition, the Court held that “the Appellant, being the co-owner of the suit building was entitled to receive rent and thus fell squarely within the statutory definition of 'landlord' under the Act.”

Importantly, the Court clarified that exclusive ownership or partition of the property is not a precondition for maintaining eviction proceedings.

The judgment stated that all co-owners of the property are landlords in the eyes of the rent control law and any of them can maintain proceedings if otherwise legally permissible.

“…this Court holds that the Appellant has conclusively proved that, at the time of filing the suit, she was a holder of the share certificates, had an interest in the land and was a co-owner of the Suit Building.”, the court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, thereby restoring the eviction decree against the Respondent-tenants.

Headnote

Rent Control and Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement and Comparative Hardship - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Sections 13(1)(g), 13(1)(l), and 13(2) – Eviction suit filed by co-landlord – Landlord-tenant relationship – Acquisition of alternate accommodation by tenants – Temporary co occupation of another portion of the building by the co-landlord during the pendency of the suit due to the death of a parent does not negate her bona fide need – Tenant cannot dictate to the landlord the suitability of the tenanted premises or insist on utilizing some other property – In assessing comparative hardship, the acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenants shifts the balance in favor of the landlord – Selling alternative accommodation during the pendency of a suit to avoid eviction reflects a conduct that tilts relative hardship against the tenant. [Paras 51-53, 56 - 60]

Civil Procedure – Pleadings vs. Proof – Scope of Summary Facts - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rules 1 & 2 – Distinction between facta probanda (material facts to be proved) and facta probantia (facts/evidence by which they are proved) – Pleadings must contain only facta probandaand not facta probantia – In an eviction suit, the plaintiff is required to plead and prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the statutory grounds for eviction – Specific documents like share certificates, internal family understandings, or detailed requirements of the family constitute evidence (facta probantia) to establish the material facts and are not required to be set out verbatim in the plaint itself – Both tests of pleading and proof stand satisfied if the essential elements of the cause of action are present in the plaint and substantiated through evidence. [Paras 28, 31-34, 36, 40]

Civil Procedure – Practice and Procedure – Deficiency in Pleadings raised in Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Pleadings – Deficiency raised for the first time in appeal – Where the pleadings in substance contain the necessary averments, and the parties went to trial fully conscious of the case and the issues, leading evidence thereon, it is not open to a party to raise the question of deficiency or absence of specific pleadings in appeal. [Para 41]

Property Law – Co-ownership and Definition of Landlord - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 3 & 8 – Share certificates of land – Interest in land includes things attached to the earth, such as walls or buildings – Holders of share certificates of the land are co-owners of the building built thereon – Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 5(3) – Definition of 'Landlord' – A co-owner of the building who is entitled to receive rent or receives rent on behalf of another falls squarely within the statutory definition of a 'landlord' and possesses the locus to maintain an eviction petition. [Paras 42-46]

Civil Procedure – Practice and Procedure – Taking Cognizance of Subsequent Events - Subsequent developments – Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events – While relief is ordinarily judged based on the date of institution of the suit, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of subsequent events and developments to ensure the remedy matches current realities, provided rules of fairness are scrupulously observed. [Para 47]

Family Arrangement – Oral Settlements - Oral Family Settlement – Validity and enforcement – A family arrangement or settlement can be entered into even by way of an unregistered oral agreement and is enforceable under special principles of equity – Technical considerations must give way to peace and harmony in enforcing family arrangements – Co-landlord is fully entitled to rely upon an oral family arrangement earmarking the suit premises for her exclusive use as a subsequent development. [Relied on Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 617; Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 555; Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770; Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 11; Paras 49-50]

Cause Title: MARIETTA D' SILVA VERSUS RUDOLF CLOTHAN LACERDA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, AOR Mr. Arun Srikumar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Upendra Mahadik, Adv. M/s Juristrust Law Offices, AOR Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde , AOR