Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original landlord Purushottam D. Rajadne, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 31.1.1998 passed by the appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1994. The original landlord had filed R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi, seeking possession of the suit property and recovery of rent on grounds of default, permanent alteration, and nuisance. The trial court decreed the suit only on the ground of default under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, holding that the tenant did not pay contractual rent despite notice and did not deposit rent on the first date of hearing. The other grounds were rejected. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's findings, concluding that the trial court had wrongly applied Section 12(3)(b). The appellate court dismissed the suit. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the appellate court's decision, dismissing the writ petition. The court found no error in the appellate court's reasoning and confirmed that the landlord was not entitled to possession under Section 12(3)(b).
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Default - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction on grounds of default, permanent alteration and nuisance - Trial court decreed eviction only on ground of default under Section 12(3)(b) holding that tenant did not pay contractual rent despite notice and did not deposit rent on first date of hearing - Appellate court reversed, finding that trial court wrongly applied Section 12(3)(b) - High Court in writ petition under Article 227 upheld appellate court's decision, dismissing the landlord's suit (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court correctly applied Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act to decree eviction, and whether the appellate court was justified in reversing that decree.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's judgment and order dated 31.1.1998, which set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the landlord's suit.
Law Points
- Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Eviction on ground of default
- Requirement of deposit of rent on first date of hearing
- Appellate court's power to reverse findings
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 38
WRIT PETITION NO. 5721 OF 2000
Mr. Drupad Patil for petitioners, Mr. I.M. Khairdi for respondents
Purushottam Dhondiba Rajadne (since deceased) through legal heirs: Smt. Kusum Purushottam Rajadne, Shri Mukund Purushottam Rajadne, Shri Anand Purushottam Rajadne, Shri Krushnaji Purushottam Rajadne
Shivling Manmath Gadhave (since deceased) through legal heirs: Shri Sanjay Shivling Gadhave, Shri Sachin Shivling Gadhave
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging appellate court's order in a rent control eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (landlord's legal heirs) sought to quash the appellate court's judgment and restore the trial court's eviction decree.
Filing Reason
The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree of eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, dismissing the landlord's suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction on ground of default under Section 12(3)(b) on 10.2.1994; appellate court allowed appeal on 31.1.1998 and dismissed the suit.
Issues
Whether the trial court correctly applied Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act to decree eviction.
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's findings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court correctly applied Section 12(3)(b) as the tenant did not pay rent despite notice and did not deposit rent on the first date of hearing.
Respondents argued that the appellate court rightly reversed the decree as the trial court wrongly applied Section 12(3)(b).
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court correctly found that the trial court wrongly applied Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, and therefore the landlord was not entitled to possession on the ground of default.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court decreed the said suit only on the ground that, the petitioner was entitled to recover possession from respondent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act...
The appellate Court came to the conclusion that, the trial Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act...
Procedural History
Original landlord filed R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 for eviction and rent. Trial court decreed suit on 10.2.1994 under Section 12(3)(b). Tenant appealed in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1994, which was allowed on 31.1.1998, setting aside the decree. Landlord's legal heirs filed Writ Petition No. 5721 of 2000 under Article 227, which was dismissed on 28.1.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 12(3)(b)
