Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale has provided relief to a 4-bedroom house owner in the western suburbs of Mumbai after the owner had encountered a situation where the tenant had left behind personal belongings, effectively transforming two of the bedrooms into a storage warehouse, leaving the owner with only two usable bedrooms.

When the tenant, to whom the petitioner had rented out his flat, ceased paying rent, the petitioner took the matter to the competent authority for the recovery of the flat and unpaid rental dues. Subsequently, the authority of the Konkan Division issued an order in April 2018, instructing the tenant to vacate the premises and pay the rental arrears up to June 2017. Additionally, the order required the tenant to pay double the rate of the monthly license fees from June 2017 onwards until the flat was handed over to the petitioner.

However, the respondent vacated the premises but left all his belongings inside the flat which forced the petitioner to move all the belongings into 2 rooms.

The petitioner had approached the high court after the competent authority said that since it is not a “court” and it cannot ensure delivery of 'vacant possession' and cannot pass an order for removal of the 1st respondent’s belongings. The revision application against the order of the competent authority came to be rejected.

The division bench in its order noted that there was no possibility of competent authority and revisional authority to say that the order had been executed when the belongings of the respondent were in the house.

"The word ‘vacant’ cannot be interpreted in such a manner, i.e., excluding part of the premises or allowing part of the premises to be fully stuffed with somebody else's belongings, at least not without doing very considerable violence to the English language. Vacant means vacant. Vacant means empty. This is what the competent authority is to ensure. There is no possibility of either the authority or the revisional authority saying that the order had been executed. It remains without being executed," the bench noted 

The bench in its order also observed that the petitioner was forced to move the furniture of the respondent to the two rooms.

"At the time of taking possession and when a panchnama was drawn there was this flat that was empty but filled with furniture — very much like a scene from Great Expectations, which i the Petitioner no doubt had. At this point, left with no choice, the Petitioner was forced to engage in some form of furniture rearrangement and all the 1st Respondent’s belongings were then put into two rooms," the bench observed.

Therefore, while granting relief to the petitioner the high court appointed a court receiver and the tenant to remove his belongings by 25 July.

The court also said that If the tenant fails to remove their belongings from the two rooms by July 25, the court receiver will be directed to proceed with the sale and disposal of the belongings through a public auction or private sale at the best available price. This action will be taken to resolve the issue and ensure the vacant possession of the rooms for the owner.

Case title: Ashok Dhawan vs Shaikh Bashid & Ors