Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Tanzeem Shakil Ahmed Siddiqui and Nausheen Shakil Ahmed Siddiqui, filed two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court and the trial court in eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents, Shailesh Nemichand Kasliwal and others, under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondents-landlords sought eviction of the petitioners-tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The petitioners contended that the findings were erroneous and that the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact and held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of perversity or lack of evidence. The court found that the findings regarding default in payment of rent and subletting were based on evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The tenant failed to pay rent for several months despite service of notice of demand - The courts below concurrently held that the tenant was in arrears and failed to pay within the statutory period - Held that the findings of fact are based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 15(1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The landlord alleged that the tenant sublet the premises without consent - The courts below found that the tenant had parted with possession in favor of a third party who was in exclusive possession - Held that the concurrent finding of subletting is supported by evidence and does not warrant interference (Paras 11-15). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - The High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of appeal and can interfere only if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the impugned orders do not suffer from any such infirmity (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding default in payment of rent and subletting under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree of eviction are upheld.
Law Points
- Rent control
- Eviction decree
- Default in payment of rent
- Subletting
- Concurrent findings
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- Limited scope of interference
