Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute over a shop premises in Mumbai. The original plaintiff, Shamrao Dinanath Bhatte, was the tenant of Shop No.13 in Miranda Chawl. He inducted the defendant, Sulochana Divakar Parkar, in 1962 for a cycle repair business. The defendant filed a declaratory suit and was declared a deemed tenant in 1980. The chawl was demolished and reconstructed twice, with the defendant being allotted alternate premises each time. The plaintiff filed an eviction suit in 1988 on grounds of bona fide requirement and default in rent. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2013, rejecting the bona fide requirement ground. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court reversed this decision in 2021, decreeing eviction. The defendant filed a revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined whether the Appellate Court erred in considering the bona fide requirement after the death of the original plaintiff and his son. The Court noted that the plaintiff's son had died during the appeal, but the legal heirs (widow and grandchildren) continued the need. The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, finding no jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The revision application was dismissed, and the eviction decree was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Eviction - Death of Plaintiff - Subsequent Events - The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court allowed the appeal and decreed eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, despite the death of the original plaintiff and his son during pendency. The High Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, held that the Appellate Court correctly considered the continuing need of the landlord's family through legal heirs, and that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the ground. (Paras 1-7)
B) Rent Control - Deemed Tenancy - Demolition and Reconstruction - Continuity of Tenancy - The suit premises were originally part of a chawl demolished and reconstructed twice. The defendant was declared a deemed tenant in 1980. The Trial Court held that the old tenancy subsisted despite demolition. The Appellate Court did not disturb this finding. (Paras 2-4)
C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope - The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to examining whether the subordinate court acted without jurisdiction, illegally, or with material irregularity. The Court found no such error in the Appellate Bench's decision. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's dismissal of the eviction suit and decreeing eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, particularly after the death of the original plaintiff and his son.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court. The Court found no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the Appellate Court's decision. The Interim Application No.8527 of 2024 was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Eviction decree
- Section 115 CPC
- Revision jurisdiction
- Deemed tenant
- Small Causes Court
- Appellate Bench
- Subsequent events
- Death of plaintiff
- Legal heirs
- Pleading of requirement
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 2527
Civil Revision Application No.231 of 2022 with Interim Application No.8527 of 2024
Mr. R.M. Haridas with Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Mr. Pratik B. Rahade for Applicant in CRA and for Respondent in IA; Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Respondents in CRA and for Applicants in IA
Shamrao Dinanath Bhatte (deleted) through legal heirs: Leena Ashok Bhatte, Prashant Ashok Bhatte, Supriya Amit Mhatre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging eviction decree passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
The applicant/defendant sought setting aside of the eviction decree and dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The defendant was aggrieved by the Appellate Court's decree directing her to vacate the suit premises on ground of bona fide requirement.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Small Causes Court) dismissed the eviction suit on 31 January 2013. The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court allowed the appeal and decreed eviction on 13 November 2021.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's dismissal and decreeing eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.
Whether the death of the original plaintiff and his son during pendency of the suit and appeal affected the ground of bona fide requirement.
Whether the Appellate Court's decision suffers from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Haridas for the applicant/defendant argued that the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree, as the ground of bona fide requirement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. He submitted that the original plaintiff's pleaded case was to run a cycle repair shop with his son, but both died during pendency, eclipsing the requirement. He argued that the legal heirs did not plead their own bona fide requirement, and thus the suit could not be decreed.
Mr. Sadavarte for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the Appellate Court correctly considered the continuing need of the landlord's family and that the death of the original plaintiff and his son did not extinguish the bona fide requirement.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court correctly reversed the Trial Court's dismissal and decreed eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The death of the original plaintiff and his son during pendency does not automatically extinguish the ground of bona fide requirement if the need continues through legal heirs. The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC will not interfere unless there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
Judgment Excerpts
Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the decree dated 13 November 2021 passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No.35 of 2013...
The Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal and has set aside the decree of the Small Causes Court dated 31 January 2013 passed in RAE & R Suit No.613/1164 of 1998.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed RAE & R Suit No.613/1164 of 1998 for eviction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 31 January 2013. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Appeal No.35 of 2013, which allowed the appeal and decreed eviction on 13 November 2021. The defendant filed Civil Revision Application No.231 of 2022 in the High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 21 October 2024 and pronounced on 25 October 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
