Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Vijaykumar Darakh, was the tenant of a shop admeasuring 20 feet x 10 feet in Aurangabad, which he had been using as a medical and general store since 1999 under the previous owner Aseer Khan. The respondent, Mohammed Shukur s/o Sk. Chand, purchased the shop on 13.06.2012 and filed a suit for eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for his son Shahabaj, a diploma holder in pharmacy who was unemployed, to start a similar business. The tenant opposed the suit, denying the need and contending that the son was already running a pharmacy across the road in another premises, and that the tenant would suffer greater hardship if evicted as no alternate shop was available in the locality. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court concurred. In the civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the tenant argued that the courts below overlooked material facts, including the son's existing pharmacy, and that the findings were based on surmises. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the tenant had admitted the landlord's ownership and the tenancy, and that the landlord had proved the son's qualification and unemployment. The court found that the son's existing pharmacy was not a bar to the need for the demised premises, as the son intended to expand or shift business. The court also held that the tenant failed to prove greater hardship. The High Court concluded that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse or without evidence, and therefore no interference was warranted under Section 115 CPC. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from shop for his son's pharmacy business - Tenant contended son already running pharmacy across road - Courts below decreed suit holding need genuine - High Court in revision held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or without evidence - Revision dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below correctly decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and whether the revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the trial court and the lower appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reasonable and bona fide requirement
- burden of proof
- suppression of material fact
- comparative hardship
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 24
Civil Revision Application No.80 of 2021
Mr. M. G. Mustafa for Petitioner, Mr. S.S. Kazi for Respondent
Mohammed Shukur s/o Sk. Chand
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision under Section 115 CPC challenging concurrent decrees of eviction in a suit for possession on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original defendant/tenant) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court.
Filing Reason
The respondent (original plaintiff/landlord) filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required for the business of his son, who was a diploma holder in pharmacy and unemployed.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for eviction. The lower appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, confirming the trial court's decree.
Issues
Whether the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in a revision under Section 115 CPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the courts below overlooked material facts, including that the landlord's son was already running a pharmacy across the road, which was suppressed in the plaint, and that the findings were based on surmises and conjectures.
Respondent argued that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse, and that the revision under Section 115 CPC has limited scope.
Ratio Decidendi
In a revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The landlord's need for the demised premises for his son's business was held to be reasonable and bona fide under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the tenant's hardship claim was not substantiated.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner who is the original defendant is challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit filed by the respondent, for his eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of the demised premises as contemplated under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as also the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dismissing his appeal preferred under Section 34 of the Act.
The demised premises is a shop admeasuring 20 feet x 10 feet which has been in possession of the petitioner since the year 1999 when one Aseer Khan was the owner. The respondent purchased it on 13.06.2012.
Procedural History
The respondent (landlord) filed a suit for eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit. The petitioner (tenant) appealed under Section 34 of the Act to the lower appellate court, which dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the present civil revision under Section 115 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 115
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 16(1)(g), 34
