Suo Moto Appeal – Tenancy Law – Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Eviction Decree Granted – The dispute centered around whether the respondent was a premises tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act – The key issue was whether AC charges, being an essential component for enjoyment of the premises, formed part of the “rent” to determine if the tenancy exceeded the Rs. 10,000/- ceiling under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – Held: AC charges are an integral part of rent based on undertakings before the Supreme Court, the consistent course of conduct, and the essential nature of AC to the tenancy – Consequently, the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, not the 1997 Act – Trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit reversed – Decree of eviction granted – Respondent’s cross-objection on technical grounds also dismissed [Paras 1-86].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Second Suit – Not Applicable – The court held that the second eviction suit was not barred despite pendency and withdrawal of the earlier suit – The cause of action in the second suit was based on the rent exceeding the ceiling limit of the 1997 Act, triggering applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, which was distinct from the earlier suit based on the 1956 Tenancy Act – Hence, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata did not apply [Paras 27-39].

Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC – Company Representation – No Bar – The objection that the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper authorization of the person signing the plaint was rejected – The court held that any director able to depose to the facts could sign and verify pleadings – The absence of an authorization resolution was a curable defect that was not raised before the trial court and could not be entertained at the appellate stage [Paras 40-47].

Definition of Rent – Inclusion of AC Charges – Rent Determination under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – The court held that AC charges, being mandatory for the use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises and arising from a binding undertaking before the Supreme Court, were an essential part of rent – Since AC was centrally provided and inseparable from the premises' use, the charges were not ancillary but integral – As a result, the total rent exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per month, taking the tenancy outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 [Paras 48-79].

Applicability of Transfer of Property Act – Eviction Valid – Once the tenancy was held to be outside the protection of the 1997 Act, it was governed by the Transfer of Property Act – The termination notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid – Plaintiff entitled to eviction on this basis [Paras 78-80].

Decision – Appeals F.A. 156 of 2022 and F.A.T. 66 of 2017 allowed – Impugned judgment and decrees dated 06.01.2017 set aside – Plaintiff’s eviction suit decreed – Defendant’s declaratory suit dismissed – Cross-objection COT 33 of 2018 dismissed – No order as to costs – Separate decrees directed to be drawn accordingly – Limited assurance granted by the appellant to not execute eviction for one month – No formal stay granted [Paras 80-86].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Relief – Section 23 of PWDV Act – Interim Relief Enhanced – The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, challenged the order of the Appellate Court granting interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- per month to her and Rs. 80,000/- per month to her daughter – Considering the opposite party’s annual income of Rs. 7.19 crores (2020-21) and petitioner’s meagre income, the Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was inadequate – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the minor daughter from the date of filing under Section 23 – Directed the Trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main application [Paras 24-26].

Maintenance – Standard of Living – Interpretation of “Accustomed” – Section 20(2) of PWDV Act – Held – The term “accustomed” refers to the standard of living the aggrieved person enjoyed during the marriage, not to the current wealth of the husband – The wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner consistent with her marital standard, but not an equalization of wealth – The Court balanced between exaggerated claims of the petitioner and the attempts by the husband to evade fair maintenance [Paras 20-22].

Equalization of Wealth – Not the Objective of Maintenance – Reiterated – Citing Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the Court clarified that monetary relief under PWDV Act cannot be equated with equalization of wealth – Maintenance aims at preventing destitution and securing dignified living, not matching the wealth of the spouse [Para 21].

Independent Income of Wife – Whether Bar to Maintenance – Held – Even if the wife has some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if the income is insufficient to sustain a lifestyle consistent with her status during marriage – The existence of modest earnings does not absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation of maintenance [Para 22].

Allegation of Adultery – Prima Facie Irrelevant – No Bar to Maintenance – Held – Allegations of adultery based on media reports and public perception cannot be accepted without cogent legal proof – In absence of clear evidence, such allegations cannot be grounds to deny maintenance [Para 23].

Maintenance for Child – Child’s Education and Welfare – The Court held that Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the child is justified considering the child’s educational needs and standard of living, with liberty to the father to voluntarily contribute more towards educational or special expenses [Para 25].

Decision – Interim Monetary Relief Modified – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter – Trial Court directed to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days – Petition disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law – Sections 363, 366, 376, 511, and 354 of the IPC - Kidnapping and Attempt to Rape – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for forcibly abducting a girl, detaining her for 20 days, and attempting to rape her – The victim’s consistent testimony under Section 164 CrPC and during trial affirmed the appellant’s acts of undressing and attempting intercourse – The High Court held that such acts constituted a clear attempt to commit rape – Conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376/511, and 354 IPC confirmed [Paras 6–9, 13–14, 28–29].

Testimony of Victim – Consistent and Unshaken – Credible Evidence of Attempted Sexual Assault – Victim (PW-2) reiterated in court that she was forcibly taken and sexually assaulted without penetration – Her account remained consistent with her statement before the Magistrate – Defence failed to discredit her evidence – Held: Her testimony, being natural and credible, forms the basis for conviction [Paras 9, 13–14, 28].

FIR Delay – Justified and Not Fatal – Delay Reasonably Explained – FIR was lodged after 21 days of incident – Delay explained due to efforts to search the victim and absence of male family members – Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that delay in FIR is not unusual in sexual offences due to social stigma – Delay does not impair prosecution case [Paras 3, 16].

Attempt to Rape – Legal Ingredients – Acts Towards Intercourse Sufficient – The appellant undressed the victim and tried to force intercourse, which was prevented by her resistance – The Court reiterated that absence of penetration does not negate offence under Section 376/511 IPC – Attempt to rape proved by conduct and intent of appellant [Paras 14, 18–21].

Consent – Not Established – Defence of Affair Rejected – Appellant’s defence of consensual relationship based on alleged letters was denied by the victim – No plea of consent was taken under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Consent was neither pleaded nor proved – Victim’s testimony confirmed absence of consent [Paras 3, 24, 28].

Recovery of Victim – From Accused’s Custody – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Victim was recovered from appellant’s custody on the date of FIR registration – Recovery corroborated by PW-5 and recovery memo – Held: Recovery supports prosecution’s claim of illegal detention and sexual assault attempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Decision – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Judgment – Appeal Dismissed – The Court found the prosecution evidence trustworthy and legally sufficient – Trial court rightly appreciated the facts and law – No ground for interference – Appeal dismissed as misconceived and lacking merit [Paras 28–29].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance under Section 24 HMA – Award of Interim Maintenance to Wife and Child – Decree Affirmed – The appellant challenged the Family Court’s order awarding pendente lite maintenance of ₹10,000/month to the wife and ₹15,000/month to the minor child – Appellant contended concealment of income and false claims of unemployment by respondent wife – Held: Mere qualifications or prior income do not negate entitlement to maintenance – No material placed before Family Court to prove respondent’s current employment – Order granting maintenance upheld [Paras 1–3, 8–10, 14–15].

Earning Capacity vs Actual Earnings – Wife’s Qualifications Not a Ground to Deny Maintenance – The Court observed that capability to earn and actual earning are distinct – A wife who has left her job for child care responsibilities cannot be denied maintenance on the sole ground of qualification – Maintenance rightly granted based on financial disparity and cost of living – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Personal Liabilities – Loans Not Deductible While Determining Maintenance – Appellant’s claim of heavy personal liabilities and loans was rejected – Held: Personal or investment-related loans are taken for self-benefit and do not reduce obligation to maintain spouse and child – Family Court correctly applied legal principle and considered liabilities while determining maintenance [Paras 11–13].

Dependents of Appellant – Claim of Responsibility Toward Parents Rejected – The appellant claimed financial burden due to liability of maintaining his mother – Held: Mother can be considered dependent on father or daughter, both of whom earn separately – No case made to reduce maintenance on this ground [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Family Court’s order awarding maintenance to wife and child found just, reasonable, and based on facts – No infirmity found in assessment of income or liabilities – Challenge to interim order on grounds of concealment or pending applications under Section 340 CrPC not maintainable in this appeal – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 14–15].

Civil Writ - Quashing of Legislative Committee Directions – Allegation of Encroachment – Writ Petition Allowed – The petitioner challenged directions dated 08.03.2017 issued by the Petitions Committee of Karnataka Legislative Council based on allegations of encroachment of Rajakaluve and public road by third party complainant – The Court held that subsequent Division Bench judgment in WP No.47747/2017 and connected cases, categorically found no such encroachment – Held: Direction issued by Committee stood nullified by binding judicial finding – Direction quashed [Paras 2-4].

Binding Effect of Judicial Findings – Scope under Articles 226 and 227 – The Court reaffirmed that when Division Bench of High Court gives categorical findings on factual matters, including inspection and reports from competent authorities, such findings bind subordinate authorities and committees – Any contrary action stands vitiated – Writ Petition rightly allowed to prevent conflicting determinations [Paras 3-4].

Effect of Public Interest Litigation Outcome – Precedence over Committee Recommendations – Proceedings before the Division Bench in related PILs conclusively determined absence of encroachment in Sy.No.83/2, supported by reports of Assistant Executive Engineer – Court observed Committee could not override such judicial pronouncement through administrative directions [Paras 3-4].

Final Decision – Direction Quashed – Writ petition allowed – Direction dated 08.03.2017 by Respondent No.1 Committee quashed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of as infructuous [Para 4].

Suo Moto PIL – Protection of Right to Food, Right to Health and Addressing Malnutrition, Obesity and Mental Health Issues – Sections 4, 5, 6 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 – Section 16 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Article 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India – Suo moto proceedings initiated to address alarming issues of malnutrition and obesity affecting minor children, women and citizens – Court emphasized that the Right to Food and Right to Health are integral to the Right to Life under Article 21 – Noted serious failures by both Central and State authorities in effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Highlighted the harmful impacts of junk food, carbonated drinks, and excessive use of mobile phones on physical and mental health of children – Directed governments to submit detailed reports on compliance with statutory obligations, strengthen Anganwadi centres, enforce food safety standards in and around schools, restrict junk food, promote traditional healthy diets, and incorporate awareness in educational curriculums – Issued notices to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and related authorities – Matter listed for further hearing [Paras 1-33].

Right to Food and Right to Health – Fundamental Rights under Article 21 – State’s Statutory Obligation – The Court held that the right to food and right to health are interconnected and integral parts of the right to life under Article 21 – Failure of State to ensure adequate nutrition constitutes violation of fundamental rights – Emphasis placed on constitutional mandate under Article 47 and international obligations [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Malnutrition – Implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013 – Sections 4, 5 and 6 – Failure to comply – The Court noted gross inadequacies in the implementation of nutritional entitlements for pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children under the Act – Directed the State and Union authorities to submit reports detailing steps taken to comply with statutory obligations under the Act, including adherence to nutritional standards specified in Schedule II [Paras 9-15].

Anganwadi Centres – Essential Role in Child Nutrition – Non-functioning Anganwadis – The Court stressed that the effective functioning of Anganwadi Centres is crucial for the implementation of welfare schemes under the National Food Security Act – Directed authorities to ensure full operational status of Anganwadi Centres to combat malnutrition [Paras 14-15].

Junk Food and Carbonated Drinks – Harmful Effects on Children – Duty under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – The Court observed that junk food and sugary drinks significantly contribute to obesity and mental health issues among children – Noted failure of authorities to monitor and regulate sale of such food items – Referred to FSSAI Guidelines on restricting HFSS (High in Fat, Salt, Sugar) foods in and around schools – Emphasized the duty of FSSAI and State under Section 16 of the FSS Act to enforce food safety standards [Paras 16-21].

Mobile Phones – Impact on Children’s Mental and Physical Health – The Court raised serious concerns over excessive use of mobile phones by children – Held that it hinders physical growth, mental development, and intellectual abilities – Suggested that governments incorporate guidelines restricting mobile usage in educational curriculums and raise awareness among parents and teachers [Para 24-25].

Curriculum Changes – Promotion of Healthy Lifestyle – Directed Education Boards to introduce syllabus content promoting healthy eating, dangers of junk food, ill-effects of carbonated drinks, and risks of mobile overuse – Also stressed revival of traditional food habits and importance of homemade “Dadi-Nani” recipes for promoting well-being [Paras 25-27].

Government Accountability – Statutory Failure – Court expressed anguish over failure of authorities to implement the National Food Security Act and Food Safety laws in their true spirit – Held that this failure directly contributes to widespread malnutrition and obesity impacting mental health of the future generation – Issued notice to Union of India, State of Rajasthan, FSSAI, and other departments to submit reports on remedial measures – Directed the matter to be listed for further hearing [Paras 28-33].

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Memorial Construction on Mayor’s Bungalow Premises – Challenge to Policy Decision – Petitions filed challenging Government Resolution dated 27.09.2016, amendment to Section 92 (dd-1) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, change in reservation of land from Green Zone to Residential Zone, and concessional lease for Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak – Held: Decision to set up the Memorial falls within the realm of policy – Court cannot substitute its judgment unless it infringes fundamental rights – Memorial for a public figure constitutes a public purpose – No interference warranted [Paras 1-34].

Judicial Review – Policy Decision – Selection of Site – Scope Limited – Choice of Mayor’s Bungalow for Memorial after recommendation by High Power Committee (HPC) is a well-considered decision – Court held that matters of land allotment and site selection fall outside the scope of judicial review unless violation of statutory norms is established – Petitioners not opposing Memorial per se, only selection of site – Held: No procedural irregularity in site selection [Paras 17-22].

Constitutional Validity – Amendment of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act – Section 92(dd-1) – Lease of Public Land at Nominal Rent – Challenge to amendment permitting grant of lease at ₹1 per annum for 30 years – No challenge to legislative competence – Court held that in absence of manifest arbitrariness or lack of constitutional values, no ground for striking down the provision – Petitioners failed to establish arbitrariness – Valid exercise of legislative power [Paras 23-25].

Development Plan – Change in Reservation – Green Zone to Residential – Compliance with MRTP Act – Notification dated 22.01.2019 effecting change in zoning from Green to Residential and label from Mayor’s Bungalow to Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak – Objections invited and considered as per MRTP Act – Planning Committee found that open space had increased in Development Plan 2034 – Held: Change of label or zoning does not amount to illegal modification – No procedural impropriety found – Process followed correctly [Paras 26-28].

Trust Constitution – Challenge to Composition of Trustees – Public Trust for Memorial – Trustees include family members of late Balasaheb Thackeray and political party members – Held: Not arbitrary – Since Memorial is to honour Balasaheb Thackeray, inclusion of family members and party members reasonable – Four ex-officio government officers also on the Trust board – Any grievances about the Trust are remediable under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act – No interference warranted [Paras 29-30].

Lease at Nominal Rent – Public Land for Memorial – Held: Mere fact that prime land is leased at nominal rent does not warrant interference when land ownership remains with MCGM and Memorial is for public purpose – Precedents cited where similar leases were granted for other memorials – Decision within policy discretion – No violation of law [Paras 31].

Environmental Clearance – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Compliance – MCZMA clearance obtained confirming compliance with CRZ Notification 2011 – Court held there is no violation of environmental norms in construction of the Memorial [Para 32].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – No illegality or procedural irregularity found in the decisions regarding site selection, amendment to law, change of reservation, or formation of Trust – Held: The Memorial construction is virtually complete, further interference is unwarranted – No order as to costs [Para 34].

Successive Regular Bail – Sections 8(C), 20(B)(ii)(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act – Successive Bail Application Dismissed – The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with possession of 9.982 kg of ganja under the NDPS Act – The earlier bail application was withdrawn with liberty reserved for refiling in case of delay in trial – The Court found no change in circumstances justifying a successive bail application – Noted that the trial is proceeding without delay – Applicant has 14 criminal antecedents, including two under the NDPS Act, and played a principal role in the offence – Held: The applicant failed to make out a case for bail – Application dismissed and Rule discharged [Paras 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Applicability of Animus Possidendi – Plea of Non-possession Rejected – Held: Contraband of 9.982 kg ganja recovered from vehicle under control of the applicant – Mere lack of physical possession does not negate culpability – Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, which clarified that ‘possession’ includes knowledge and control with animus possidendi – Argument of non-recovery from personal possession rejected [Para 8].

Successive Bail – No Change in Circumstance – Legal Principle – Held: Successive bail applications are maintainable only if there is a significant change in circumstances – Mere passage of time or filing of charge sheet does not constitute change – Cited Apex Court rulings in Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406 and Navin Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 2 SCC (Cri.) 809 – Filing of charge sheet does not dilute the seriousness of allegations – Successive bail cannot be entertained routinely [Para 9].

Bail Principles – Factors Considered – NDPS and Criminal Antecedents – Held: While considering bail, the court must consider the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, role of the accused, past conduct, possibility of tampering with evidence, and larger public interest – Cited CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 and Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCC 446 – Given the applicant’s multiple past offences and repeat nature of NDPS violations, bail rightly rejected [Paras 10-11].

Parity with Co-accused – Not Applicable – Role of Applicant More Serious – Held: Bail granted to co-accused does not apply when the applicant's role is distinct and graver – Co-accused were granted bail because their involvement was limited to driving or assisting, whereas the applicant is alleged to be the main supplier of contraband – Past criminal history further disentitles him to claim parity – Parity principle rejected [Paras 7, 12].

Successive Bail – Judicial Discipline – Guiding Principles – Held: Cited Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan (2002) 3 SCC 598 – While the right to make successive bail applications exists, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether new grounds or change in circumstances justify taking a view different from earlier decisions – No such grounds exist in this case [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Considering the seriousness of the offence, past criminal antecedents, absence of any change in circumstances, and the risk of reoffending, the Court dismissed the successive bail application – Directed the trial court to expedite the trial on day-to-day basis and to provide legal aid if the applicant does not engage a private lawyer [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 354A(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Acquittal Ordered – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court for holding the victim’s hand and uttering “I love you” – The High Court held that mere holding of hand and expression of love without any overt sexual act, demand for sexual favour, or repeated conduct does not constitute offences under IPC Sections 354A(i), 354D(1)(i), or Section 8 of the POCSO Act – No evidence of sexual intent or stalking – Conviction quashed and accused acquitted [Paras 1-42].

POCSO Act – Proof of Age – Admissibility of Birth Certificate – Section 17 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act and Section 35 of Evidence Act – Age of victim proved – Birth certificate produced from competent authority showing victim’s date of birth as 12.05.1999 held admissible as primary evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act – No cross-examination challenging age – Held: Prosecution proved victim was minor at time of offence [Paras 11-16].

Sexual Harassment – Section 354A IPC – Essential Ingredients – Sexual Intent – Mere utterance of “I Love You” and holding hand without any unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or demand for sexual favours does not constitute sexual harassment – No evidence of sexually coloured remarks – Held: Offence under Section 354A IPC not made out [Paras 23-26, 31-37].

Stalking – Section 354D IPC – Requirement of Repeated Contact – A single instance of following or interaction without repeated acts is insufficient to constitute stalking – No evidence of following to foster personal interaction despite disinterest – Held: Charge under Section 354D IPC unsustainable [Paras 29-30].

POCSO Act – Sexual Assault – Requirement of Physical Contact with Sexual Intent – Section 7 and Punishment under Section 8 of POCSO Act – No allegation of touching private parts or other acts indicating sexual assault – Uttering “I Love You” by itself does not establish sexual intent – No physical act reflecting sexual overture – Held: Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act not established [Paras 31-39].

Interpretation of Sexual Intent – Reliance on Bandu Vitthalrao Borwar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16128 – Expression of “I Love You” in absence of gestures, physical touch or overt sexual conduct is not sufficient to prove sexual intent – Intention is to be determined from overall circumstances – Held: No evidence to conclude existence of sexual intent [Paras 35-37].

Appeal – Acquittal – Conviction set aside – Judgment of Trial Court erroneous for misapplication of Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act – Accused acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 42].