Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hemant Bharat Kachare, as landlord, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 16 February 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, which allowed Civil Appeal No.564/1996 and set aside the eviction decree dated 30 March 1996 passed by the 3rd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune. The landlord had instituted Civil Suit No.253/1994 seeking recovery of possession of suit premises (a hall, tin shed, kitchen, and open space admeasuring 1280 sq. ft.) from the tenant, Vasu Anna Shetty, on the ground of unauthorized permanent alterations under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The tenant was inducted under a Rent Agreement dated 1 April 1982 and ran a restaurant. The landlord alleged that the tenant constructed a new toilet block and a shed in the open space without consent, leading to a municipal notice. The Trial Court decreed eviction, but the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the landlord failed to plead the original condition of the premises and the exact alterations, and that the Trial Court's decree was cryptic. The landlord argued that the plaint contained specific pleadings about the toilet and shed, and that the Rent Agreement only permitted renovation, not permanent construction. The tenant contended that the landlord did not produce a plan showing the original condition, and the Appellate Court's findings were not perverse. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Appellate Court's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the landlord did not plead the original condition of the premises, which was essential to prove unauthorized additions. The petition was dismissed, and the Appellate Court's decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Unauthorized Construction - Section 13(1)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Burden of Proof - Landlord must specifically plead the original condition of the premises and the exact additions/alterations made by the tenant; failure to do so disentitles the landlord to a decree for eviction. In this case, the Appellate Court found the plaint lacked details of original condition and the Trial Court's decree was cryptic, leading to reversal. (Paras 9-12)
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Permissible Renovation vs. Permanent Structure - Section 13(1)(b) Bombay Rent Act - Interpretation of Rent Agreement - The Rent Agreement permitted renovation/decoration; construction of a toilet block and covering open space with a shed were held to be beyond permissible renovation. However, due to lack of pleadings and evidence of original condition, the Appellate Court's finding that the landlord failed to prove unauthorized construction was not perverse. (Paras 5, 9-12)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - High Court in writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court and will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Appellate Court's findings were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court's reversal of the eviction decree was perverse and whether the landlord sufficiently pleaded and proved unauthorized permanent alterations under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Appellate Court's decree dated 16 February 1999. The eviction suit filed by the landlord stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(b) Bombay Rent Act
- burden of proof on landlord to plead and prove original condition and unauthorized additions
- perversity standard in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (10) 2530
Writ Petition No. 2637 of 2000
Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yogesh G. Thorat i/b Mr. Ashok B. Tajane, for the Petitioner; Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for the Respondents
Vasu Anna Shetty, Sham Bharat Kachare, Ajay Bharat Kachare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging appellate decree in eviction suit based on unauthorized permanent alterations.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-landlord sought restoration of eviction decree passed by Trial Court and setting aside of Appellate Court's decree dismissing the suit.
Filing Reason
Landlord alleged tenant made unauthorized permanent constructions (toilet block and shed) without consent, violating Section 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (3rd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune) decreed eviction on 30 March 1996; Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Pune) allowed appeal and dismissed suit on 16 February 1999.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Court's finding that the landlord failed to plead and prove the original condition of the premises and the exact alterations is perverse.
Whether the constructions made by the tenant (toilet block and shed) were permissible renovations under the Rent Agreement or unauthorized permanent structures under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Plaint contained specific pleadings about construction of toilet and shed; Rent Agreement only permitted renovation, not permanent construction; Appellate Court's findings are perverse.
Respondent: Landlord did not produce plan showing original condition; Trial Court's decree was cryptic; Appellate Court correctly reversed; no perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.
Ratio Decidendi
In an eviction suit under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, the landlord must specifically plead the original condition of the premises and the exact additions/alterations made by the tenant. Failure to do so disentitles the landlord to a decree. The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 will not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellate Court has allowed Defendants’ Appeal and has reversed the eviction decree by its judgment and order dated 16 February 1999.
The Appellate Court has erroneously set aside the eviction decree by recording a perverse finding that the Plaintiff did not plead details about the exact alterations and permanent structures made by the Defendant-tenant.
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the Defendant-tenant on the solitary ground of erecting permanent structure in the suit premises without his consent attracting the ground under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Perusal of the Plaint would indicate that following constructions by the Defendant were averred therein (i) new toilet block by use of bricks and cement... and (ii) shed admeasuring 22 ft 7 inches x 16 ft in the open space...
The Appellate Court has held that the Plaintiff did not produce the plan in respect of the premises showing its condition at the time of execution of the Rent Agreement.
In absence of such pleadings, the Appellate Court has reversed the cryptic eviction decree passed by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court's findings are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed as perverse.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.253/1994 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune seeking eviction on ground of unauthorized permanent alterations. Trial Court decreed suit on 30 March 1996. Defendant filed Civil Appeal No.564/1996 before the District Judge, Pune, which was allowed on 16 February 1999, setting aside eviction decree and dismissing suit. Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No.2637/2000 in Bombay High Court, which was admitted on 2 August 2000 and finally heard on 18 October 2024, with judgment pronounced on 24 October 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(b)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
