Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original plaintiff-landlord, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, which had dismissed their appeal against the Trial Court's decree of eviction. The original plaintiff had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 5073/1980 under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, seeking eviction of the defendant-tenant from a shop premises on grounds including default, non-user, change of user, acquisition of alternate suitable premises, and personal bona fide requirement. During the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint to add that he was without regular income and his 28-year-old non-matric daughter, who knew tailoring, needed the suit property for her tailoring business and for his estate agency business. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 19.08.1997, finding that the plaintiff had proved his bona fide reasonable requirement, that greater hardship was in his favour, and that the defendant had acquired suitable alternate premises. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeal on 31.07.2001, affirming the Trial Court's findings. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the parties and perused the record. The Court noted that the suit property was a shop, not an open piece of land, and that the Trial Court had decreed the suit on grounds of bona fide requirement and acquisition of alternate premises. The Appellate Court had affirmed these findings. The High Court observed that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not shown to be perverse. The Court held that there was no error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's need for suit shop for daughter's tailoring business - The landlord proved his bona fide requirement as he was without regular income and his daughter, a non-matric with tailoring skills, needed the shop for livelihood. The Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently found the requirement genuine and greater hardship in favour of the landlord. (Paras 2-4, 6-7) B) Rent Control - Acquisition of Alternate Suitable Premises - Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant's acquisition of alternate premises - The tenant acquired a shop in the same locality for his business, which was found suitable by both courts. The High Court upheld this finding as a concurrent finding of fact not warranting interference. (Paras 4, 6-7) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse or without jurisdiction. The findings were not shown to be perverse. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the landlord's bona fide requirement and the tenant's acquisition of alternate suitable premises warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court that the landlord had proved his bona fide requirement and that the tenant had acquired alternate suitable premises. No interference under Article 227 was warranted.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement
- Acquisition of alternate suitable premises
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Bombay Rent Act 1947 Sections 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(l)
