w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vinayak Mahadeo Nirgum v/s Sadanand Shantaram Bandekar


Company & Directors' Information:- VINAYAK AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040335

    Special Civil Application No. 139 of 1978

    Decided On, 10 September 1981

    At, High Court of Judicature at Bombay

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. PRATAP

    For the Petitioner: N.K. Sawant, Advocate. For the Respondent: G.S. Kalsekar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

S.C. PRATAP, J.


This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.


2. Property of which the suit premises form part, originally belonged to one Mainuddin Ibrahim Harekar. By registered conveyance dated 21st April, 1972 he sold the same to the plaintiff. Subsequently, by assignments dated 5th July, 1972 and 29th July, 1972 respectively, he also assigned to the plaintiff pre-sale or pre-transfer arrears of rent i.e. rent due to him, the original owner, till the date 21st April, 1972 when he sold the property to the plaintiff (hereinafter the pre-transfer arrears of rent). On 18th October, 1972 the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy and claiming Rs. 708/- being pre-transfer arrears of rent due to the original owner but later assigned to the plaintiff plus Rs. 60/- being post transfer arrears or rent actually due to the plaintiff himself for the period after his purchase. This notice was duly replied to by the defendant on 11th November, 1972. On December 16, 1972, plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery of arrears and possession on the ground of the said arrears. Defendant denied and contested the said claim.


3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession, that the case was governed by section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act and that the defendant was entitled to relief against eviction as per the decree. In appeal by the plaintiff, it was held that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the case was governed by section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession. In the result, the appeal was allowed, the trial Court's decree was set aside and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed. Hence this petition.


4. Hearing the rival submissions of the respective Counsels, two questions arise for determination :---


a) What is the legal character of pre-transfer arrears of rent assigned to the plaintiff by his predecessor-in-title?

b) When rent was payable (i) by the month and (ii) according to the British Calendar, can the defendant, as on the date of the suit notice, be said to be in arrears of rent for six months or more so as to warrant a decree for possession in terms of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act?


5. Taking up the first question, it does not admit of any debate that both rent as also arrears of rent is property. Pre-transfer rent, therefore, is property. Now, under section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, property of any kind may be transferred unless---and this here is of some importance---otherwise provided by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force. In terms of the said exception, the proviso to section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act expressly provides that the transferee of the property leased, is not entitled to rent due before the transfer. The plaintiff, therefore was in law not entitled to pre-transfer. Consequently, when the plaintiff himself had no right to such pre-transfer rent, he cannot seek to recover the same as rent from the defendant.


6. It was, however, open to the plaintiff to obtain from his predecessor-in-title assignment of the said pre-transfer arrears of rent. But on such assignment, the same would in the hands of the assignee-plaintiff get transformed into a debt. The pre-transfer arrears of rent would consequently cease to be "rent" so called. By virtue of its assignment, that once upon its character or erstwhile nature would stand extinguished and get transformed into a debt. Under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, claim to any debt was an actionable claim. Therefore, the plaintiff as assignee of the pre-transfer arrears of rent transformed in his hands into a debt could certainly sue to recover the same but only in its character of and as a debt as constra-distinghished from rent. The legal character of the pre-transfer arrears of rent on its assignment to the plaintiff by his predecessor-in-title would be a debt. And the actionable claim within the meaning of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act would be a claim to that debt.


7. Section 12 of the Rent Act has no application to such a debt and to such an actionable claim. Qua the said debt, there never has been between the parties hereto any relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff purchased the property on 21st April, 1972. He thus became owner and landlord only as from that date. Consequently, he had, in law, no right to any rent for any period prior thereto. In these circumstances reliance placed on pre-transfer arrears of rent as cause of action for eviction of the tenant was untenable and misconceived. Claim for possession on the said basis thus fails.


8. The position would be different if the original owner/landlord had first filed suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and pending such suit, sold the property. Purchase pending an eviction suit would give rise to a different situation, different rights and different considerations. Consideration and adjudiciation thereof is, however, not called for in this case.


9. Coming next to the second question which arises out of a claim for possession based on a cause of action viz., post-transfer arrears of rent from 21st April, 1972 read with section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act, on which claim the Appellate Court has decreed the suit, I find the said claim also devoid of merit. As noted, the property was purchased by the plaintiff on 21st April, 1972. Only as from this date, therefore, the plaintiff became the owner and the landlord and the defendant became his tenant. It is not disputed that rent was payable by the month and according to the British Calendar. Now, a lease even according to the British Calendar need not necessarily start from the first date of the calendar month. It can commence even from any intermediate date of the calender month. The lease here would thus commence from 21st April, 1972 when the plaintiff purchased the suit property and when the defendant consequently became the tenant of the plaintiff. The said lease being according to British Calendar and rent being payable by the month, true legal position is that the monthly lease which commenced on 21st April 1972 would be from the 21st of that month to the 20th of the next month (and so on) according to the British Calendar. Rent would, therefore, be payable and recoverable with respect to this period of a month i.e. 21st of a month to 20th of the next succeeding month and so forth onwards.


10. The suit notice was given on 18th October, 1972. As on that date, the arrears of rent due were for only five months, viz.,:

a) 21-4-1972 to 20-5-1972

b) 21-5-1972 to 20-6-1972

c) 21-6-1972 to 20-7-1972

d) 21-7-1972 to 20-8-1972

e) 21-8-1972 to 20-9-1972

The sixth month 21-9-1972 to 20-10-1972 was actually running when the suit notice was given. It was yet to get completed. The suit notice was given in between the said month. One of the prime conditions for the application of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act is that the rent must be in arrears.


"......for a period of six months or more."


Here the arrears due were for a period less than six months. Indeed, the suit notice itself demands for this period Rs. 60/- which represents rent of only five months at the undisputed rate of Rs. 12/- per month. This very demand, therefore, fell short of one of the basic requirements

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of this section. The suit notice qua claim for possession under section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act was thus clearly premature and invalid. Claim for possession on this ground also was thus liable to fail. The Appellate Court, therefore, erred in decreeing the same. The said decree is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 29th October, 1977 passed by the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1975 is set aside and quashed and the plaintiff's suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 106 of 1972, is so far as the same relates to possession of the suit premises, is dismissed. 12. Rule earlier issued on this petition is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs throughout. Petition allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-02-2020 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises represented by its Proprietor R. Devika Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch, Park Town Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Vinayak Cargo V/S Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
06-09-2019 Udayan Vinayak Modak & Another Versus Madhavi Chandrashekhar Kale & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-08-2019 M/s. Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. Versus The State Of Karnataka & Others Supreme Court of India
25-06-2019 Surendra Yashwant Deole, Since deceased through his heirs & legal representatives & Others Versus Sudhakar Vinayak Sharangpani & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-06-2019 Shailesh Vinayak Chavan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2019 M/s. Sri Anand Vinayak Coalfields Limited Versus M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited High Court of Delhi
25-04-2019 Vinayak (Deceased through L.Rs.) & Others Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-03-2019 Vinayak Krishnarao Waghdhare & Others Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-03-2019 Satyajeet @ Nana Shivajirao Kadam Versus Rajesh Vinayak Kshirsagar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2019 Siddhi Vinayak Collage Versus National Council for Teacher Education & Another High Court of Delhi
08-01-2019 Vinayak Vijay Mohite Versus Union of India, through The Secretary, Dept. Of Defence Production, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench Mumbai
28-11-2018 Narayan Malhari Thorat Versus Vinayak Deorao Bhagat & Another Supreme Court of India
26-10-2018 Vinayak Dagaji Sarode & Others Versus Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule, Through its Municipal Commissioner & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-10-2018 M/s. Vinayak Manu Trade Private Limited, Jaipur & Others Versus State represented by, The Drugs Inspector, Intelligence Wing, Office of the Directorate of Drugs Control, Teynampet, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-09-2018 Ulhas Vinayak Nirmale Versus Keshav & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-06-2018 Post Master Versus Vinayak Gopalrao Kulkarni Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
13-06-2018 Vinayak Sitaram Barje & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-05-2018 Vinayak Private ITI Versus Directorate General of Training High Court of Delhi
22-03-2018 Vinayak & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-03-2018 Nithyanand Mahadev Bhat Versus Manoj Vinayak Pandit High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
01-03-2018 Vinayak Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-02-2018 Ramesh Vinayak Versus Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
15-01-2018 Vinayak Vishnu Khasnis & Others Versus Shashikant Venkatesh Khasnis (Since Deceased), Through LR & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-01-2018 Aneesh Kumar Vinayak Versus Savita Pokar High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-11-2017 Vinayak Agrotech Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
09-11-2017 Raghu Ganesh Shet Parkar & Others Versus Vinayak Sagun Shet Parkar, Since deceased, by his heirs & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
26-09-2017 Prafulla Vinayak Nage Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-09-2017 Alfredo M. Rodrigues & Others Versus Gokulanant Bascara Naik, (since deceased ), through his legal heirs Vinayak @ Pandarinath B. Naik, (since deceased) through his legal heirs & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
15-09-2017 Vinayak M. Dessai Versus Ulhas N. Naik & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
31-07-2017 Vinayak Industries and Others V/S C.C.E. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
28-06-2017 Vinayak Enterprises and Others V/S C.C.E. (Prev), New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
19-05-2017 Major Sandeep Vinayak & Others Versus Army Welfare Housing Organization & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-05-2017 Vinayak Steels Ltd V/S Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Hyderabad-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Hyderabad
27-04-2017 Vishal Vinayak Bandekar Versus The Revision Authority (Central Government), under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
20-04-2017 Siddhi Vinayak College of Science & Higher Education Versus Jitender Singh Rathore National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-04-2017 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises & Others Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2017 M/s. Karwa Developers & Others Versus Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2016 Mangesh Balkrushnaji Deshmukh Versus Vinayak Shikshan Sanstha & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-06-2016 Divisional Manager & Others Versus Vinayak Chintaman Gawande & Others Supreme Court of India
13-06-2016 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Parubai Vinayak Katake, (Since deceased deleted) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-06-2016 Bhagyashree Versus Vinayak & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
06-06-2016 Vinayak Aba Sawant (Since deceased), through L.Rs.) & Others Versus Vijay Keru Yelave High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2016 Vinayak Uskelwar Versus Ranjana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-05-2016 Vinayak Purushottam Dube Through Lrs. Versus Jayashree Padmakar Bhat & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-05-2016 Dr. Shiv Vinayak Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-05-2016 M/s. Vinayak Engineering Works Versus Girish Shivagi Magar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-04-2016 Rajendra Vinayak Mehta & Another Versus Veena Jaswant Shah High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-02-2016 For the Petitioner: Parminder Singh-I, Advocate. For the Respondent: B.M. Vinayak, DAG Punjab. High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-02-2016 Chhabilal Rathore Versus Vinayak Mission Research Foundation Deemed University & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
23-12-2015 Milun Suryajani, Through its Editor Geetali Vinayak Mandakini & Others Versus Pune Municipal Commissioner, Shivajinagar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-10-2015 Baldev Ram & Others Versus M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Cement Private Ltd. & Another High Court of Rajasthan
14-09-2015 Vinayak Projects Versus Manav Infrastructure Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
04-09-2015 Fatima Gomes Furtado & Others Versus Indirabai Vinayak Lotlikar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
28-08-2015 Vinayak Ransingh & Another Versus Kamlakar Krishna Holkar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2015 M/s. Vinayak Ashish Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus M/s. Essar Enterprises & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-08-2015 Girdhari Parmanand Motiani Versus Vinayak Bhagwan Khavnekar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
23-06-2015 Umanath Naik & Another Versus Vinayak Shrinivas Naik, (since deceased) through his legal representatives & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
11-06-2015 Narayan Vinayak Desai & Others Versus Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-05-2015 Vinayak Versus Dr. Vijay Kumar Hariram Nainderkar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-05-2015 Sidhi Vinayak Rice Mills Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Delhi
11-02-2015 Balwant Vinayak Kulkarni (Waklekar) & Another Versus Suresh Punju Amrutkar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-01-2015 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali Versus Central Bureau of Investigation Supreme Court of India
08-01-2015 Dr. Sailesh Vinayak Deshpandey & Another Versus Union Of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-12-2014 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali Versus C.B.I Supreme Court of India
14-10-2014 Tileshwar Devnarayan Rai Versus Anil Vinayak Pimputkar & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
22-09-2014 Vinayak Versus State In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
19-09-2014 Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu & Another Versus Vinayak M. Fotto & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
21-08-2014 Ganpati Vinayak Achwal High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-07-2014 Vinayak & Another Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-07-2014 Suresh Kakodkar Versus Vinayak Gopinath Naik Karmali (Since deceased) & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-07-2014 Pravina Vikrant Ghotge Versus Vinayak Ramchandra Dindorikar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2014 Vinayak Laxman Jadhav Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-05-2014 Dr. Vinayak & Another Versus State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Ministry for Health and Family Welfare Department & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2014 Sukanta Saha & Another Versus M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Projects & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-04-2014 Haresh Laxman Hargunaney Versus M/s. Vinayak Builder and Developers & Another Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
15-04-2014 Unit Trust of India Now Uti Amc Pvt. Ltd. Versus Vinayak Arora Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
11-04-2014 Tilak Nagar Royal Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus M/S. Vinayak Constructions & Others Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
01-04-2014 Vinayak S. Shetty Versus The State Of Karnataka By Its CBI ACB High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-02-2014 Vinayak Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-02-2014 Dr. Vijay Vinayak Uddanwadikar Versus Life Insurance Corporation Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
03-02-2014 CCE, Raipur Versus M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Sponge Iron (P) Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
27-01-2014 Vinayak s/o. Daulat Watkar (Dead) through L.Rs.: & Others Versus Jeevan & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-01-2014 Vinu alias Vinayak & Another Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-11-2013 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Technical Officer, Vinayak Nagar Versus Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench Mumbai
12-11-2013 State (Through Police Inspector, Porvorim, Bardez-Goa) Versus Vinayak Karbotkar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
19-10-2013 Chandrashekhar Vinayak Wargane Versus The State of Maharashtra through its PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-09-2013 Vinayak Dynaneshwar Mainkar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-08-2013 Vinayak Narayan Navkar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Law and Judiciary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-06-2013 M/s. K.G.C. Enterprises, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory K.S. Vinayak & Others Versus The New Mangalore Port Trust, Rep by its Chairman, Panambur & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-06-2013 Subhash Vinayak Supnekar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune
21-03-2013 Rajesh Ramchandra Shinde & Another Versus Vinayak Sadashiv Dixhit, Administrator The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
08-03-2013 Vinayak & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2013 Vinayak Ranum D.P. Loundo Versus Ms. Amira A. Razaq & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
25-02-2013 Vinayak Versus Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-01-2013 Vinayak Ukharda Javare Versus Madhukar Tulshiram Patil In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-01-2013 M/s.Vinayak Industries Pvt.Ltd. & Others Versus The Managing Director, Raj. State Food and Civil Supply Corpn. & Another High Court of Rajasthan
30-11-2012 Shri Prakash Vinayak Naik Versus Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-11-2012 Pandurang Vinayak Deokar Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-11-2012 Vinayak Bhaskar Sinai Dhume Versus State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box