Skip to content


Jagdish RamnaraIn Vs. Narainbhai Motibhai Valand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1979)1GLR808
AppellantJagdish Ramnarain
RespondentNarainbhai Motibhai Valand
Excerpt:
- .....by its order dated 23rd december 1977, it held that distress warrant could not be issued to attach movable property of: the tenant lying not at the premises let out to him by the landlord but at some other premises. it also held that the tenant to whom the premises have been let out by the landlord cannot be made liable to distress warrant if he has been residing elsewhere. on these findings the learned judge dismissed the application for issuance of distress warrant. it is that order which is challenged in this civil revision application.2. mr. vyas who appears on behalf of the landlord has invited my attention to section 57 of the presidency small cause courts act, 1882 which inter alia provides as follows:in pursuance of the warrant aforesaid the bailiff shall seize the movable.....
Judgment:

S.H. Sheth, J.

1. This Revision Application arises out of distress warrant proceedings. The landlord applied under Section 53-of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for issuance of a distress warrant in order to 30: realise the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 630/-. Registrar of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad issued notice to the tenant to show cause it why distress warrant should not be levied. The tenant appeared and contested the application. Thereafter the application was heard by the Court of Small Causes. By its order dated 23rd December 1977, it held that distress warrant could not be issued to attach movable property of: the tenant lying not at the premises let out to him by the landlord but at some other premises. It also held that the tenant to whom the premises have been let out by the landlord cannot be made liable to distress warrant if he has been residing elsewhere. On these findings the learned Judge dismissed the application for issuance of distress warrant. It is that order which is challenged in this Civil Revision Application.

2. Mr. Vyas who appears on behalf of the landlord has invited my attention to Section 57 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 which inter alia provides as follows:

In pursuance of the warrant aforesaid the bailiff shall seize the movable property found in or upon the house or premises mentioned in the warrant and belonging to the person from whom the rent is claimed (hereinafter called the debtor), or such part thereof as may, in the bailiff's judgment, be sufficient to cover the amount of the said rent, together with the costs of the said distress....

He has argued that the trial Court was bound to issue distress warrant to seize movable property found in or upon the house or premises mentioned in the warrant. According to him, the landlord had specified in his application the house or premises where the movable property of the tenant was lying and that house or premises in ordinary course would have been mentioned in the distress warrant. He has further argued that Section 57 does not require that distress warrant shall be levied only to seize movable property found in or upon the house or premises let out by the landlord to the tenant and not elsewhere. He has emphasised that Section 57 does not circumscribe or confine the levy of distress warrant upon the movable property found in or upon the house or premises let out by the landlord to the tenant.

3. In order to appreciate the contention which he has raised, it is necessary to turn to Section 53 which provides for making an application for distress warrant. It inter alia provides as follows:

Any person claiming to be entitled to arrears of rent of any house or premises to which this Chapter extends, or his duly constituted attorney, may apply to any Judge of the Small Causes Court, or to the Registrar of the Small Causes Court, for such warrant as is hereinafter mentioned....

Section 53 specifically refers to house or premises in respect of which arrears of rent are due. The expression 'house or premises' used in Section 57 cannot have a meaning different from the expression 'house or premises' used in Section 53. Therefore, when Section 53 and sec 57 are read together, it becomes very clear that movable property of the tenant found in or upon the house or premises in respect of which arrears of rent are due alone can be seized under Section 57. In that view of the matter the expression 'house or premises mentioned in the warrant and belonging to the person from whom the rent is claimed' means that house or premises in respect of which arrears of rent are due and which is mentioned in the warrant and it further means that movable property belonging to the tenant lying in such a house or premises alone can be seized by levying the distress warrant. Levy of a distress warrant is a summary remedy - Often it is issued at the instance of a landlord to recover arrears of rent without issuing notice to a tenant. It often happens that if a tenant is aggrieved by the levy of such a distress warrant, he later goes to the Court and challenges its validity. Such a summary remedy provided by legislature in Chapter VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 cannot be enlarged so as to bring within its sweep movable property of the tenant lying anywhere within, the territorial limits of the Court issuing it. It must be circumscribed to seizure of movable property found in or upon the house or premises let out by the landlord to the tenant - such movable property belonging to the tenant against whom distress warrant is issued. In my opinion, therefore, the Court of Small Causes was justified in rejecting the application.

The Civil Revision Application, therefore, fails and rule is discharged with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //