Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the defendants (tenants) against the dismissal of their appeal challenging an eviction decree. The plaintiffs (landlords) had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2010 seeking possession of two shop premises (shop no.1A admeasuring 382 sq.ft. on the ground floor and shop no.1B admeasuring 332 sq.ft. on the first floor) on the grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement for starting an eatery/hotel and arrears of rent. The plaintiffs terminated the tenancy on 6th May 2010. The plaintiffs claimed they had previously run a hotel at Village Kashti, which they shut and shifted to Daund, and that eleven family members intended to start a hotel in the suit premises, which are located in a market area and thus ideal. The plaintiffs also contended that the defendants had suitable alternative commercial property at Survey No.105/A-1/22/2/1, which they partly sold during the pendency of the suit for Rs.1,12,50,000/-, and that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if possession was not granted. The defendants denied the genuineness of the plaintiffs' need and claimed the plaintiffs had other properties at Baramati and Daund. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court, in revision, held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiffs' bona fide requirement and comparative hardship were based on evidence and not perverse, and thus no interference was warranted. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord's need for starting hotel business in suit premises - Trial court and appellate court concurrently found the need genuine and bonafide, and comparative hardship in favour of landlord - Revision dismissed - Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 1-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the plaintiffs under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, warrants interference in revision?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Reasonable and bona fide requirement
- Comparative hardship
- Eviction decree under Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 40
Civil Revision Application No.43 of 2020
Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the Applicants, Mr. Siddharth C. Wakankar for the Respondents
Shri Shripad Bhaskar Bhagwat & Ors.
Smt. Mangal Madhukar Jogalekar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against dismissal of appeal confirming eviction decree under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (defendants/tenants) sought to set aside the eviction decree and the appellate order dismissing their appeal.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs (landlords) sought possession of suit shops on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement for starting an eatery/hotel and arrears of rent.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction on 14th March 2018; Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 2018 was dismissed on 25th September 2019.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs' requirement of the suit premises for starting an eatery/hotel is reasonable and bona fide under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999?
Whether the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the plaintiffs?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below warrant interference in revision?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs submitted that they had shut their hotel at Kashti and shifted to Daund; eleven family members intended to start a hotel in the suit premises which are in a market area; defendants had alternative commercial property which they sold for Rs.1,12,50,000/-; greater hardship would be caused to plaintiffs if decree not passed.
Defendants submitted that plaintiffs' need was not genuine; plaintiffs had other properties at Baramati and Daund (CTS Nos.1826 to 1830) where they could start business; no hardship would be caused to plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court regarding the landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement and comparative hardship, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
Applicants’, Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 2018, directed against the eviction decree, dated 14th March, 2018 under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was dismissed on 25th September, 2019; against which this revision, is preferred.
Facts, of the case are as under: ... Respondents/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2010 to recover possession of the suit shop premises on the ground that premises are reasonably and bonafide required for starting an eatery/hotel and arrears of rent.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 2010 for eviction. Trial court decreed eviction on 14th March 2018. Defendants appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No.60 of 2018, which was dismissed on 25th September 2019. Defendants then filed this Civil Revision Application No.43 of 2020 in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(g)
