Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Surgonda Kalgonda Patil, was the original plaintiff who filed a suit for possession of suit premises and recovery of arrears of rent against the respondents, who were his tenants. The suit was filed on grounds of willful default in payment of rent, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the respondents, and reasonable and bona fide need of the applicant for his personal use and occupation. The suit property came to the applicant's share in a partition dated 20.1.1987. The respondents had agreed to pay rent of Rs. 225 per month but allegedly avoided payment. The applicant claimed that the respondents were in arrears of Rs. 15,975 till August 1995. The respondents contended that there was a dispute regarding the rent amount and that they had sent rent by money order which was refused. They also filed an application for fixation of standard rent, which was dismissed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal. The applicant filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding willful default and bona fide need were based on evidence and not perverse. The tenant had sent rent by money order which was refused, indicating a bona fide dispute. The landlord's need was not established as he was residing in his wife's house. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Willful Default - Burden of Proof - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord must prove that the tenant's default in payment of rent was willful and intentional. In the present case, the tenant had sent rent by money order which was refused by the landlord, and the tenant had filed an application for fixation of standard rent. The courts below held that the default was not willful as there was a bona fide dispute regarding the rent amount. (Paras 5-7) B) Rent Control - Bona Fide Need - Reasonable Requirement - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord must prove that his need for the suit premises is reasonable and bona fide. The landlord claimed he needed the premises for his personal use and occupation, but the courts found that the landlord was residing in a house owned by his wife and had not shown any immediate need. The concurrent findings of fact were not interfered with in revision. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope - The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC can only interfere if there is a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse. The court found no such error in the impugned judgments. (Paras 4, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit for possession on grounds of willful default, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation, and reasonable and bona fide need of the landlord.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with no order as to costs. The concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld.
Law Points
- Willful default
- Bona fide need
- Standard rent
- Burden of proof
- Section 115 CPC
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
