Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a judgment and decree dated 30 June 1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 1989, which affirmed an eviction decree in RCS/401/1985. The respondents as plaintiffs-landlords owned shop premises situated at Suit No.463/12 at Maruti Square, Gaon Area, Sangli. The original tenant, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, ran a Sweet Mart in the suit shop and was a monthly tenant. The landlords filed a suit for eviction alleging that the suit shop was let out only for the purpose of carrying on the business of Sweet Mart and that the defendant had kept the suit shop locked without any cause for over 15 months prior to the institution of the suit. A notice dated 27 May 1985 terminated the tenancy effective 30 June 1985, but the defendant neither vacated nor replied. The defendant contested the suit, denying that the shop was let only for Sweet Mart and claiming that diverse businesses had been run for over 50 years. He attributed the closure to his wife's illness and eventual death. The Trial Court, after evidence, found non-user in favour of the landlords, noting no electricity consumption from June 1984 to July 1985 and no reply to the pre-suit notice. It held that the explanation of wife's illness was reasonable but insufficient to account for non-user of over one and half years. The Appellate Court concurred, adding that since the written statement claimed the family ran diverse businesses, other family members could have used the shop. Thus, both courts recorded concurrent findings of non-user for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause. The tenants filed the present writ petition challenging these concurrent findings. The petitioners argued that the Trial Court erred in passing the eviction decree without satisfying itself that the non-user was for a continuous period of six months and without reasonable cause; the issue framed by the Trial Judge omitted the word 'continuous'; there was no pleading on both points; and the courts below failed to properly appreciate the reasonableness of the cause for non-user. They relied on Ashok V. Chavan v. Baburao Sakharam Bhagat and C.R. Shaikh v. Lilabai D. Rohida. The respondents contended that concurrent findings of fact are not open for interference under Article 227, that evidence established non-user, and that the Appellate Court considered both continuous non-user and reasonability of cause. The High Court examined Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, which requires non-user of the premises for the purpose for which let, for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit, without reasonable cause. It referred to Nilesh Laxmichand v. Shantaben Purushottam Kakad, where the Supreme Court enumerated the elements under the pari materia Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and to Vora Rahimbhai Haji Hasanbhai Popat v. Vora Sunderlal Manilal, which explained the object of the Rent Act to prevent tenants from keeping premises locked without reasonable cause. The High Court found that the plaint's allegation that the suit shop was kept locked for over 15 months without any reason sufficiently subsumed both the elements of continuous non-user and absence of reasonable cause. It distinguished Ashok Chavan on facts, as there the landlord had not pleaded or proved lock for more than six months without cause. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact warranted no interference under Article 227. The final operative direction was not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Non-User - Ingredients of Section 13(1)(k) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The court reiterated that eviction on ground of non-user requires proof that premises were not used for the purpose for which let, for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit, without reasonable cause. Held that the landlord's pleading that the shop was kept locked for over 15 months without any reason sufficiently subsumed both elements of continuous non-user and absence of reasonable cause (Paras 9-10, 13-14). B) Rent Control and Eviction - Pleading Requirements - Sufficiency of Pleadings - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The landlord alleged that the tenant kept the suit shop locked for over 15 months without any reason. The court held such assertion is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of pleading both continuous non-user and lack of reasonable cause. The case of Ashok Chavan was distinguished because there the landlord had neither pleaded nor adduced evidence of lock for more than six months without cause (Paras 13-15). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts on non-user are not open for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 unless perversity is shown. The court found no merit in the tenant's contention that the issue framed omitted the word 'continuous', as the pleading and evidence covered the requirement (Paras 8, 13-14). D) Rent Control and Eviction - Non-User - Elements Under Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 16(1)(n) - The Supreme Court in Nilesh Laxmichand v. Shantaben Purushottam Kakad held that four elements must be established: premises let for a particular purpose, non-user for that purpose, non-user without reasonable cause, and non-user for continuous six months immediately preceding suit. The court followed this interpretation as pari materia with Section 13(1)(k) of the 1947 Act (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing eviction under Section 13(1)(k) of Bombay Rent Act, 1947 absent specific pleading of continuous non-user and without reasonable cause; whether concurrent findings of fact warrant interference under Article 227
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(k) requires non-user for purpose let
- continuous period of six months immediately preceding suit
- without reasonable cause
- pleadings of lock for over 15 months without reason sufficient
- writ jurisdiction under Article 227 limited to supervisory
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered absent perversity
- non-user ground under Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 is pari materia
