Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil revision applications arising from a dispute between the landlords (M/s. K. B. Lahoti and Company and others) and the tenants (Champalal Vithuram Jajoo and others) along with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1998 for possession of the suit premises, alleging that the tenants had sublet the premises to Bharat Petroleum without consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the tenants were in lawful possession and that subletting was not proved. The appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2005 confirmed the decree. The landlords then filed Civil Revision Application No. 561 of 2018, and Bharat Petroleum filed Civil Revision Application No. 562 of 2016. The High Court considered whether the concurrent findings were perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error. The court noted that the tenants had proved payment of rent and the landlord had accepted it, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord failed to prove that the tenant had parted with possession or that Bharat Petroleum was in exclusive possession. The court held that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and dismissed both revision applications, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Burden of Proof - Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The landlord alleged subletting by the tenant, but failed to prove that the tenant had parted with possession or that the alleged sublessee was in exclusive possession. The court held that mere presence of another person on the premises does not constitute subletting; the landlord must prove that the tenant has transferred his right of possession. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in revision cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the findings of the trial court and appellate court were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 16-20) C) Rent Control - Tenancy - Existence of Relationship - The tenant proved payment of rent and acceptance by the landlord, establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. The landlord's denial of tenancy was not supported by evidence. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the existence of tenancy and absence of subletting are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Both civil revision applications are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rent Control
- Subletting
- Burden of Proof
- Concurrent Findings
- Section 16 Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 115 CPC
