SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYED versus MRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYED versus MRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the assignments relied upon by the appellant were illegal under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999 unless a contract to the contrary or valid ratification by the landlord is established; no ratification or contract to the contrary was proved, the appellant's competing accounts of possession were irreconcilable and the execution application under Order XXI Rule 97 was rightly rejected; accordingly there was no merit to interfere with the High Court order and the appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Shabbir Mohammad Sayed; Respondent: Mrs. Noor Jehan Mushtter Shaikh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Final Hearing and Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 26 Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999, Ratification Under Contract Act, 1872, Lis Pendens and Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, Registration of Tenancy Agreements Under Section 55 Tenancy Act, Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, Registration Under Indian Registration Act, 1908
Rent Control Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Section 26 Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999 Ratification Under Contract Act, 1872 Lis Pendens and Section 52 Transfer of Property Act Registration of Tenancy Agreements Under Section 55 Tenancy Act +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shabbir Mohammad Sayed

Appellant

Mrs. Noor Jehan Mushtter Shaikh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Final Hearing and Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assignment by a tenant is lawful under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999 absent a contract to the contrary
  2. 2 Whether a purported landlord ratification of a tenant's assignment was established
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 Transfer of Property Act) as amended in Bombay affected the transactions

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the assignments relied upon by the appellant were illegal under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Tenancy Act, 1999 unless a contract to the contrary or valid ratification by the landlord is established; no ratification or contract to the contrary was proved, the appellant's competing accounts of possession were irreconcilable and the execution application under Order XXI Rule 97 was rightly rejected; accordingly there was no merit to interfere with the High Court order and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • No order as to costs