Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original tenants of a shop premises, challenged the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. The proceedings began in 1978-79 when the respondents-landlords sought permission to issue quit notice. The Rent Controller granted permission on 30/10/1998 under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii). The respondents issued a quit notice on 02/11/1998, which the petitioners claimed they received only the first page. A subsequent notice on 17/11/1998 was refused by the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal against the Rent Controller's order was dismissed, and a stay was granted on 13/11/1998. The eviction proceedings culminated in orders of eviction by both courts below. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined the validity of the quit notices and the grounds of eviction. The court noted that the Rent Controller's order granting permission to issue quit notice had become final. The concurrent findings of the courts below on the service of notice and the grounds of subletting and bona fide need were based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Quit Notice - Service of Notice - Refusal to Accept - Under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 - The Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice, which was confirmed in appeal and writ petition. The tenants claimed only first page of notice was received, but the courts below found that the notice was validly served and the tenants refused subsequent notice. Held that the concurrent findings on service of notice are binding and not perverse (Paras 3-6).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Bona Fide Need - Under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 - The respondents-landlords sought eviction on grounds of subletting and bona fide need. The courts below found that the tenants had sublet the premises and the landlords required the premises for their own use. Held that the findings of fact are based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the tenanted premises was valid in law, particularly regarding the service of quit notices and the grounds of subletting and bona fide need.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Quit Notice
- Service of Notice
- Refusal to Accept Notice
- Subletting
- Bona Fide Need
- C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Clause 13(3)(vi)
- Clause 13(3)(vii)
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 147
Writ Petition No. 6732 of 2019
Mr. H. D. Dangre for petitioners, Mr. S. P. Hedaoo for respondents
Kanhaiyyalal S/o Jairamdas Jethwani, Hemantkumar S/o Jairamdas Jethwani, Maheshkumar S/o Jairamdas Jethwani
Smt. Rukminidevi wd/o Laltaprasad Gupta, Manojkumar s/o Laltaprasad Gupta, Arunkumar s/o Laltaprasad Gupta, Santoshkumar s/o Laltaprasad Gupta, Anupkumar s/o Laltaprasad Gupta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging eviction orders passed by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority under C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original tenants) sought to set aside the eviction orders and retain possession of the tenanted premises.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below ordering their eviction from the tenanted premises.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice on 30/10/1998; appeal against that order was dismissed; writ petition against that order was also dismissed by this Court. Eviction proceedings culminated in eviction orders by both courts below.
Issues
Whether the quit notices were validly served on the petitioners?
Whether the grounds of subletting and bona fide need were established by the respondents?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that only the first page of the quit notice dated 02/11/1998 was received and the subsequent notice was not properly served.
Respondents contended that the notices were validly served and the petitioners refused to accept the second notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the valid service of quit notices and the grounds of subletting and bona fide need are based on evidence and are not perverse; hence, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners i.e. the original tenants have challenged orders passed by the two Courts below, whereby, the petitioners have been evicted from the tenanted premises.
It is an admitted position that the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller dated 30/10/1998, granting permission to the respondents to issue quit notice to the petitioners was confirmed by the dismissal of the appeal and eventually by dismissal of writ petition by this Court.
Procedural History
Proceedings initiated in 1978-79 under C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. Rent Controller granted permission to issue quit notice on 30/10/1998. Quit notice issued on 02/11/1998. Appeal against Rent Controller's order dismissed; stay granted on 13/11/1998. Second quit notice issued on 17/11/1998. Eviction proceedings commenced and resulted in eviction orders by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. Petitioners filed writ petition in 2019 challenging those orders.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vi), Clause 13(3)(vii)
