Bombay High Court on Impermissibility of Partial Ejectment: “Landlord Cannot Seek Eviction for Part of the Tenanted Premises When Indivisible Tenancy Exists”

---

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the landlord’s eviction suit because it sought partial eviction of the premises under a single, indivisible tenancy agreement. The court held that such an approach is contrary to established legal principles.

The court emphasized:

“Landlord cannot issue a demand notice or file a suit for partial eviction when the tenancy is indivisible and covers multiple parts of the property.”

---

Facts:

1. The property involved, Supariwala Mansion, includes multiple shops and premises rented under an indivisible tenancy agreement.
2. The original tenants were Ricardia and Archibald Annes. Following their deaths, disputes arose between their heirs over tenancy rights.
3. The landlord filed a suit for eviction alleging arrears of rent for Shop No. 2 and the rear portion of Shop No. 1, ignoring other parts of the premises included in the original tenancy.
4. The premises were historically let as a single unit, evidenced by joint rent receipts.

---

Issues:

The primary questions before the court were:

1. Can the landlord seek eviction for only a portion of the premises when the tenancy agreement is indivisible?
2. Does a notice demanding arrears for part of the premises comply with the legal requirements for eviction proceedings?
3. Do partial agreements or possession changes among tenants affect the indivisibility of tenancy?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, a legal heir of one of the tenants, argued:

• Indivisible Tenancy: The tenancy agreement covered Shops No. 1, 2, 3, and associated premises. Partial eviction violates this indivisibility.
• Invalid Notice: The landlord’s demand notice pertained only to Shop No. 2 and a part of Shop No. 1, which rendered it legally invalid.
• Lack of Evidence: There was no legal documentation to prove the division of tenancy among heirs or that the petitioner surrendered tenancy rights for other parts of the property.

---

Respondent’s Arguments:

The landlord contended:

1. Partial Surrender: Portions of the property had been surrendered or sub-let by the tenants, justifying partial eviction.
2. Valid Notices: The demand notices were duly served and complied with the legal requirements.
3. Consent Decrees: Earlier agreements between the tenants indicated a division of tenancy rights, supporting the landlord’s claim for partial eviction.

---

Analysis of the Law:

1. Indivisibility of Tenancy: The Court relied on key precedents:
   • Habibunnisa Begum v. Doraikannu Chettiar: Indivisible tenancy agreements cannot be split for partial ejectment.
   • S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand: If a tenancy agreement is indivisible, the Court cannot split it for eviction of part of the premises.
2. Demand Notice Requirements:
   • Chimanlal v. Mishrilal: Notices demanding arrears must cover the entire premises, not just parts. A partial notice invalidates the suit.
   • The Court reiterated that a valid demand notice is a prerequisite for initiating an eviction suit.

---

Precedent Analysis:

• Habibunnisa Begum v. Doraikannu Chettiar: The Court had ruled that partial ejectment violates the principle of indivisibility of tenancy.
• Chimanlal v. Mishrilal: The notice for arrears must refer to the entire tenancy, not just a fraction of it.

---

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court analyzed the facts and legal principles as follows:

1. Tenancy Remained Indivisible: Historical rent receipts and earlier litigation confirmed that the tenancy agreement covered Shops No. 1, 2, 3, and other premises as a single unit.
2. Defective Notice: The landlord’s notice only demanded rent for parts of the premises, violating the requirement for notices to cover the entire property.
3. No Evidence of Division: The landlord failed to provide evidence of any lawful division of tenancy or consent for partial eviction.
4. Invalid Suit: Without a valid notice for the entire premises, the eviction suit was not maintainable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

---

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the landlord’s eviction suit, holding:

• The demand notice was invalid as it pertained only to parts of the premises.
• A partial eviction suit under an indivisible tenancy agreement is impermissible.

---

Implications:

This ruling reinforces:

1. Strict Compliance with Tenancy Law: Landlords must adhere to legal requirements, including issuing valid notices for the entire tenanted premises.
2. Protection for Tenants: Tenants cannot be evicted piecemeal from properties governed by indivisible tenancy agreements.
3. Clarity for Eviction Suits: The judgment provides clear guidance on maintaining suits for eviction under rent control laws.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Against GST Show Cause Notice Alleging Misclassification and Non-Payment of GST on Production Overhead Charges: Asserts Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Circumvent Statutory Remedies