what they said about Indian Judiciary: Alok on tenants and rent act::

what they said about Indian Judiciary: Alok on tenants and rent act::: Alok on tenants and rent act::  Buildings built by government officer of MAHADA etc fall in average 30 years. Built by builders falls averag...

paying rent of Rs 360/- per annum for one room but paying Rs.7260 per annum to DTH TV

Due to Maharashtra Rent act old tenants in Mumbai pay rent of Rs 360/- per annum for one room but pay Recharge of Rs.7260 per annum to DTH TV

• • 
    
  •  The Maharashtra govt has made a law in 1950 s that rent cant b increased so tenants of those days r paying 65 years old rent but paying for everything at current price so the result is landlord are ruined as well as buildings r falling as landlord cant afford to repair. .

RIGHT TO PARK IS NOT AN EASEMENTARY RIGHT.................................... The Delhi High Court

RIGHT TO PARK IS NOT AN EASEMENTARY RIGHT The Delhi High Court on Friday, September 18, 2015 in Surabhi Gehlot Vs. Swarn Kanta Punj held that the right to park is not an easementary right. Such a right, in the absence of any inclusion as part of the terms of the lease cannot be read into the lease as an implied term of the tenancy. A bench comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Deepa Sharma observed that a tenant is entitled to only such rights that would be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the tenancy.

Right to Easement of Parking

A previous judgment of Delhi High Court in Shri Akesh Kumar Jain v. Shri Harmeet Singh Bakshi 2001(59) DRJ 734 also held to the same effect that the tenant would be entitled to only such rights that would be reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the tenancy.

“The question is whether the requirement of parking a car in the drive way be considered as an implied term or a right of enjoyment of the tenancy? In our view the answer to the same is in the negative.”
the Court referred.

The plaintiff urges her right to easement of parking by virtue of Section 15 of the Easements Act. Section 15 of the Act states as follows:

“15. Acquisition by prescription:- Where the access and use of light or air and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, And where support from one person’s land or things affixed thereto, has been peaceably received by another person’s land subjected to artificial pressure, or by things affixed thereto, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, And where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, The right to such access and use of light or air, support, or other easement, shall be absolute.

Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.”
Allowing the appeal filed by the defendants the High Court held that while the plaintiff has a right to access the premises, there is no easementary right to park her car in the demised premises. The right to easement of parking, if such a right were to exist, asserted as acquired by prescription in the present case, is a particular form of easement.

In other words, it is a specific extent of a right of easement. Before the Court can answer whether there is such a specific right of easement of parking over the demised premises, the Court must first answer the more fundamental question, i.e. whether in the present circumstances, any right of easement can arise in the first instance. In other words, the right of an easement of parking presupposes that the core essentials for a valid easement have already been met and satisfied.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants put up an iron gate at the opening of the passage leading to the demised premises, thereby obstructing her passage to the premises by car and parking the same in the open space adjacent to the demised premises. The defendant/appellants argued that the plaintiff had in no way been denied access or impeded in her approach to the demised premises; only that she cannot access the premises by car and/or park her car in the open space.

The primary contention of the plaintiff in this regard is that her right to park is a right of easement by prescription by virtue of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. To this effect she filed an application, seeking an interim injunction that would have the same effect, i.e. restrain the defendants from interfering with her right to park in front of the demised premises.

Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Counsel for the defendant, contends that the plaint is liable to be rejected on two grounds; namely, Order VII Rule 11 (a) -i.e that it does not disclose a cause of action; and secondly Order VII Rule 11 (d), i.e that it is barred by law, specifically, the Indian Easements Act.

He argues that it is not the plaintiff’s case that a right to park in the open space was a part of the tenancy, but merely that this right had accrued to her absolutely by virtue of the Indian Easements Act. As a result of this singular ground of claim, he argues that the plaint must be rejected as it is a settled position of law that the right of parking cannot be termed an easementary right.

Further, learned counsel argues that the learned Single Judge erroneously allowed the respondent to lead evidence to project that the right to park was a part of the terms of the lease.

The defendant argued that since it is a matter of well settled law that a right to parking is a valuable right, and not an easementary right, the plaintiff’s insistence on claiming it as an easement, makes the plaint liable to be rejected on the ground that there exists no cause of action.

It was further argued that the suit averments nowhere set up a claim of exclusive use of the right to park; rather the plaintiff’s complaint is that the use permitted by the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest has resulted in an obligation to continue granting such permission.

It was also argued that there is no term in the lease document which entitles the lessee to claim use of the kind sought in the suit. Impugning the order granting the interim injunction, the defendants argued that (1) no right of easement can be asserted by a tenant against his own landlord, (2) that a right of access to the said premises can in no way be construed as a right to an easement of parking over the same (3) that the plea of accretion can also not be pressed against the landlord for the simple reason that the plea is with regard to land that already belongs to the appellants.

The claim for any term entitling the plaintiff to use any land for parking may not be part of a written lease between a landlord and tenant and the absence of a written document of lease placed on record by the plaintiff she can still prove it during evidence when the trial begins that the terms of lease included the right to park the car also at the open space outside her tenanted premises which also formed part of the tenanted premises.

Heavy leakage from Tenant Purohit in my adjacent kitchen and dining room and also on ground floor office of mine

trailer of my story as tenant and as landlords......Alok Tholiya...

trailer of my story as tenant and as landlords......Alok Tholiya...

When my parents came to Mumbai they became tenant first in Borivali, then in santacruz West and then in Bulsuroys colony Santacruz East. Finally they came in present buildings in around 1950 and my family lives here since then. Each time they found a more suitable place they handed over the earlier place to landlords. They always remained obliged and indebted to landlords who provided shelter to the migrants without any shade over head. No relative or friend was willing to keep them or provide any shelter for more then few days but the shelter providers the landlords. In the meanwhile my father also got allotment of a tenement in Unnat nagar ,Goregaon.My MAHADA grandfather had by then started his shop in Santacruz east in Saburi building ( then known as Dias building). He refused to shift. My father was offered on (black) money for illegally selling that quarter in Unnat nagar built by MAHADA. But he said what about hundreds of applicants waiting in queue for a roof over head. And as his principle was he surrendered the accommodation back to Maharashtra Housing board. And even renting out option since was illegal he did not encash same. In 1978 the landlord of Devi Asha building ( now known as Tholiya Bhavan ) wanted to get rid off the building as was a big headache as being a absentee landlord was not able to protect same and tenants started encroaching, carrying out illegal changes, some stopped paying rent and some filed cases for repairs ( which was not affordable as two and half decade before rents were frozen and so on. Poor fellow got tired and decided to sell. At that time we were the biggest tenant having more rooms in tenancy decided to purchase same from landlords as were aware that if v do not buy then new buyer if wants to remove us then v will be in soup. Better v buy. Since 1978 till today v maintain the building though v receive old rent which is as low as rs 30/- per month. The tenant Purohit having more than 5 cars and crores of rupees assets and keeping room unused and locked did not vacate. I filed my first suit of eviction against any tenant and that was on Purohit in 2004 which is now in high court appealing against decree.Shamelessly sticking to this one room not of use to him as he has migrated to Jaipur. Appeal court gave mesne profit as only Rs 1000/- for a room with attached kitchen and toilet and bathroom. It will be too long to give facts how his father was ruined while trying to make a film Subah ki manzil and my parents took care of him and his family. But this purohit for his bad habits and greed and lust joined hands with our sworn enemy , a drunkard, ever using filthy language, accusing and alleging worst ( finally I filed a defamation suit) . This purohits claimed in court that his daughters r now using the room. But actually were coming here for showing claim on room and had taken a flat on leave and licence @ 28600/- per month in near by locality. I can prove this fact.While still paying Rs 1000/- in court for a my room. Then they started parking a car in compound without permission and without paying a penny . I can narrate many more doings of some tenants. And there were many good tenants too. And only we still enjoy good relations and exchange of cordiality ( like going to each other on all sukh dukh occasions. These good tenants Shri R N Goyal, Shri N M Thakar , Smt Amrit Arora and their family have full contacts with us but none with mischievous tenants like Purohit and others. But it is important to tell here that all these three tenants left voluntarily our building but I had to pay the fair market price to them . As I hv told I can go on as it is a history of 6 to 7 decades and 2 buildings and multiple families but for want of time will give u one more instance. My father was a practising Cost accountant and in 1965 or so he started his practice from the office of Shri Shyam sunder ji Dharnidharka. He used this place as his office ( Tholiya and associates , Cost accountants, Room no. 76, Bombay Mutual Building, P M Rd., Fort , Mumbai 40001). He had there his shops and establishments, phones and all other proofs like bank account and so on of over 45 years. He ( my beloved father ) expired in 2011 and he had used this office genuinely full time for decades. But I vacated this office on 14 th day post his death ( after terevan) where as I had hundreds of proof to stick to that office as even world thought that this was my dad's office. But my heart and concious said it was great affection and love and relations with which great Dharnidharka family gave us their prestigious place in FORT / FOUNtAIN and in return I can't give them hell ( by making them run to police and court) and trying to misuse the present system. So I am grateful to all those who have done good to me and my family but I am specially thankful to my shelter providers ( called landlords) for giving my family a decent living space a and space to earn living or else my parents too would have been living in shanties and would have been earning by doing some business on roads and footpath. You will find that due to this draconian non visionary rent act thousands of advocates,doctors etc a sophisticated professionals besides millions of others doing their works from huts and shades illegally built as rental housing industry has been killed. The media and few few devilish tenants and landlords have given such bad picture of landlords that one forgets that first decent shade over their head in city like Mumbai was given to them by none other then landlords. Atleast I will remain indebted to our landlords the Dias family a very gentle and pious goan christians , the Brigadier General Umrao singh and Shri Dharnidharka family. May god bless these landlords and teach lesson to treacherous ones. As I am not a biased person I feel for and support all poor and incapable tenants but call upon rich and mighty tenants to have fair and honest look at your past and pay back to landlords who ensured that your parents are not sleeping on platforms and footpaths but in a room built with hard earned money of family of landlords.

Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association ( FRTWA)......or unjust traders asso????

Bhaskar Prabhu shared Viren Shah's photo.

19 hrs · 

Viren Shah

Dear Tenants,
As you all know that Honourable Chief Minister have decided to withdraw 'Un reasonable' Draft of Rent Act page from Housing Policy.

FRTWA along with Action Committee for Protection of Tenants Rights have decided to felicitate all party Leaders and Mumbai President of BJP Shri Ashish Shelar and his team for their efforts to draw CM's Attention of such unduly Landlord developer favourable draft where unreasonable power given to landlord to charge Rent at market Price in spite of several times 'Pagree' taken at market rate in last more then 50 years.
Good news is that CM and Housing Minister decided to withdraw the draft due to large protest of tenants started from Colaba.

Viren shah
President
Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association ( FRTWA)

Like · Comment · 

Share

• 2 people like this.
• 

  Prakash Ganatra Good for tenants.

  Like · Reply · 5 hrs
• 

  Alok Tholiya nothing can b good if it is blood soaked and fully selfishness and cowardly. Can participate in any debate on rent control.

  Like · 37 mins
• 

  Alok Tholiya who is this Viren Shah??? Is he a Jain???? And if yes then does he know teachings of Mahavir Bhagwan.

  Like · 25 mins
• 

  Alok Tholiya Bhaskar ji, U r a great activist. Let us all come above pure self interest and care for others too wherever possible. I am openly inviting all of u the Tenants cause Messiah to visit my both building and judge for yourself : R there rich tenants and yet not paying Rent of Rs 125/- pm for 5 rooms. 2. Trespassers raping property but paying nothing and running commercial activities. 3. Illegally parking cars inside for free. 4. Illegal constructions. 5 Not using , keeping rooms underlock. 5. ......I can go on. And same tenant pay in lacs to advocates , file false cases claiming extra rights and then dragging the matter in court by purchasing......For any man with heart and atma does it look fair????? Be honest???? same tenants pay Rs 500/- for TV cable, new rate of petrol, vegetables, milk and so on. My tenant paid lacs of Rs for admission of daughters in management collage, gave them car ( he has several cars in Jaipur) but his advocate D C Mehta said in a appeal court that his client is a poor person and can't pay high mesne profit so same be fixed at Rs 500/- pm.. And court in his pocket passed an order of mesne profit to be Rs 1000/- . That too he did not deposit in time to delay the matter and asked for condoning delay in depositing rent in court. Where as it is in the court records admitted fact that he travels several time to US and other countries as he is a very big gems and jewellery exporter. And your Viren Shah and others are protecting such tenants. Find the fees of Ad Amin Nathani. And my tenant has hired him for last 24 years who specially comes from princess street to Bandra court for her. And she claims mercy on age and financial capacity. She is my tenant, she is a tenants of one Jariwala bungalow and of huge estate of Wadia trust. Still I hv no issues on that. But same lady has claimed exclusive right to terrace and without any supporting documents got injunction against me and now case is not even moved an inch. She can spend lacs on advocate but can not on maintaining the property and all her tenanted property are in falling condition. I am writing with names so let anyone file contempt, defamation if I am wrong.

  Like · 6 mins
• 

  Alok Tholiya Bhaskar ji all landlords are not bad and all tenants are not good. Nither all landlords are rich and nor all tenants are poor. I had to sell plot of land in Kandivali to sustain but not asked a penny more from tenants but they don't even pay water they drink. Millionaire Purohit has not paid for water. My three tenants and one trespasser have taken market rate as compensation ( in lacs) for surrendering their tenanted rooms. They wanted to go as they had bought either huge apartments or had shifted and these rooms were of no use to them. They took money in return while they had not paid any pugree. So pugree is a crime but taking pugree for vacating out of your own need is a obligation to landlord? Double standard........shame....

  Like · Just now
• 

  Write a reply...

  
  
• 

  Alok Tholiya I Had an impression that our CM is a man of principles and ethics.But he is a gira hua unethical and sold out for votes soul. Even I do not expect good tenants to be removed or charged at market rate. But he did not hv courage to ask the tenants reps to even ask is it ethical to pay Rs 30/- pm for a room? He could hv asked what can be reasonable acceptable ??? Can't tenants pay atleast something more ??????? And those who move in posh cars and hv huge bank balance and multiple business interests. By seeing voters in large nos. he has loosened his pent as for money ......who does????? cant he call for joint meetings??? Cat he call for fair assessment. The proposed amendment was little too harsh but a midway was possible but is possible for a statesman and not for cowardly cheap vote seekers.

  Like · Reply · 31 mins