Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Application challenging concurrent findings of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench. The suit had originally been decreed on the grounds of unlawful subletting and default in payment of rent. While the Appellate Court rejected the ground of default, it upheld eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings and also refused to stay its judgment after pronouncement.
Facts
The dispute concerned a tenanted room in a building at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The plaintiff had acquired ownership of the building through conveyance deeds executed in 2006. After acquiring ownership, the plaintiff found that the applicant was in possession of premises where the original tenant was stated to have been inducted earlier. The plaintiff alleged that the applicant was an unlawful sub-tenant and also claimed default in payment of rent.
The suit was filed before the Small Causes Court in 2008. The applicant resisted the suit by claiming that tenancy rights had been assigned/transferred to him in November 1995 with the consent of the earlier owners, but because of disputes between the earlier owners and the appointment of a Court Receiver, the transfer could not be formally documented. The Trial Court accepted the grounds of unlawful subletting and default and decreed eviction. In appeal, the Appellate Bench rejected default but confirmed eviction on unlawful subletting.
Issues
The main issues before the High Court were whether the Appellate Court had erred in not deciding two applications for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, whether the matter deserved remand, whether the limitation issue required evidence under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC, whether the eviction suit was barred by limitation as the alleged induction was of 1995, whether the suit was defective as it was initially filed against a deceased tenant, and whether the applicant could claim tenancy merely because his name appeared in the list annexed to the conveyance deeds.
Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant argued that the Appellate Court had failed to decide two applications filed for production of additional evidence and therefore the appeal ought to be remanded. It was further argued that once an additional issue of limitation was framed, the Appellate Court should have referred the matter to the Trial Court for evidence under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC. The applicant also contended that he had been inducted in November 1995, whereas the suit was filed in 2008, and therefore the suit was barred by limitation. He further claimed that his name appeared in the list annexed to the conveyance deeds and therefore he could not be treated as an unlawful sub-tenant.
Respondent’s Arguments
The plaintiff opposed the revision and argued that there were concurrent findings of unlawful subletting. It was submitted that the applicant had flooded the Appellate Court with several applications for additional evidence and was attempting to delay the eviction proceedings. The plaintiff further argued that unlawful subletting gives rise to a continuing cause of action and therefore the suit was not barred by limitation. It was also argued that the list annexed to the conveyance deeds referred not only to tenants but also to occupants, and therefore mere mention of the applicant’s name did not confer tenancy rights.
Analysis Of The Law
The High Court held that production of additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is an exception and not a matter of right. The Court noted that the applicant had filed four separate applications for production of additional material/evidence and observed that if any vital evidence was required, it ought to have been placed in one proper application. The Court found that filing multiple applications was not a bona fide exercise but was aimed at delaying the appeal and creating a ground for remand.
The Court strongly observed that the applicant had “misused the liberty available under Order XLI Rule 27” and had “abused the process of law” by filing multiple applications for the same purpose. The Court further held that it could not assist a litigant who had adopted such a course to prolong eviction proceedings which had already remained pending for about 18 years.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered the judgments cited on additional evidence, including Jatinder Singh v. Mehar Singh and Malayalam Plantations Ltd. v. State of Kerala, but distinguished them on facts. The Court noted that those judgments require appellate courts to consider applications under Order XLI Rule 27, but they do not permit a litigant to misuse the provision by filing multiple applications to fill lacunae or delay proceedings.
On limitation, the Court considered the applicant’s reliance on Ganpat Ram Sharma, Shakuntala S. Tiwari, Taherbhai T. Poonawala, and Bakul Nandlal Gandhi, but preferred the line of reasoning in Shree Durga Trading Co., which held that unlawful subletting constitutes a continuing breach and gives rise to a continuing cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act. The Court also referred to Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare on the concept of continuing wrong.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that the appeal had to be remanded merely because two applications for additional evidence were not separately decided. It held that the applicant could not take advantage of his own conduct in filing multiple applications and then claim that non-disposal of some of them required remand. The Court found that most of the documents sought to be produced were already within the applicant’s knowledge or custody and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27.
On limitation, the Court held that unlawful subletting is a continuing breach. Therefore, so long as the unlawful subletting continues, the cause of action also continues. The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the suit was time-barred merely because his alleged induction was in 1995 and the suit was filed in 2008.
The Court also rejected the objection that the suit was filed against a dead person, noting that the plaint had been amended and the legal heirs of the original tenant had been brought on record. Therefore, when the suit was decided, it was not proceeding against a dead person.
The Court further held that mere mention of the applicant’s name in the list annexed to the conveyance deeds did not make him a tenant. The relevant clause referred to both “tenants” and “occupants”, and therefore the applicant could not claim tenancy merely on the basis of such mention.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that no case was made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of unlawful subletting recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The Civil Revision Application was dismissed. The Court also rejected the request for stay of the judgment, noting that there was no interim order operating in favour of the applicant.