Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Khandelwal Steel & Pipe Distributors, a partnership firm, was a tenant in a three-storied house property owned by the respondents (landlords) situated at Central Avenue, Nagpur. The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2015 before the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord's son, Kamal Rajendranath Malhotra, who needed the suit premises for his independent business. The trial court decreed eviction on 15th May 2019, which was upheld by the District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 250/2019 on 10th January 2022. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings. The tenant argued that the landlord's son was already in possession of other business premises and that the need was not bona fide. The landlords contended that the son was working in a partnership firm and wanted to start his own business, and that the tenant had alternative accommodation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the scope of Article 227 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide need were based on evidence and not perverse. The tenant's claim of alternative accommodation was not proved. The court also noted that the trial court had considered comparative hardship and granted time to vacate. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Eviction decree based on landlord's son's need for premises for independent business - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and appellate court - Held that scope of Article 227 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 2-10). B) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Landlord's son's need - Tenant's alternative accommodation - Tenant claimed to have alternative accommodation but failed to prove - Held that burden on tenant to prove alternative accommodation not discharged (Paras 7-9). C) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Comparative hardship - Section 16(2) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Trial court considered hardship and granted time to vacate - Held that no error in exercise of discretion (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide need of the landlord's son for the suit premises under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur dated 10.01.2022 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 250/2019 upholding the eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2015 dated 15.05.2019 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Eviction decree
- Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Tenant's alternative accommodation
