Case Note & Summary
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 21st November 1998 passed in Appeal No. 450 of 1995 by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction decree passed by the trial court. The suit premises is Room No.9 in Block No.10 in Joshi Boarding House (also known as Joshi Lodging House) situated on the 3rd Floor of Mahalaxmi Niwas, Dadar, Mumbai. The respondent's late mother Smt. Savitribai K. Joshi was the proprietress of the boarding house until her death in 1982. The boarding house was started in 1934, and the 3rd floor lodging rooms were added in 1956. The original tenant Bhagatsingh Sadhusingh Jina (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs) was a tenant of the suit room. The respondent filed L.E. & C. Suit No. 378/434 of 1988 seeking eviction on grounds of subletting, unauthorized construction, and nuisance. The trial court decreed eviction on 23rd August 1995, which was confirmed by the appellate court on 21st November 1998. The petitioners argued that the premises were used as a lodging house and thus the Rent Act did not apply, or alternatively, that they were entitled to protection. The respondent contended that the tenant had sublet the room to third parties and made unauthorized constructions. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse, and therefore no interference was warranted under Article 227. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(e) - The landlord sought eviction on ground of subletting without consent; the courts below found that the tenant had sublet the premises to third parties. Held that subletting without landlord's consent is a valid ground for eviction (Paras 5-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorized Construction - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(b) - The landlord alleged that the tenant made unauthorized additions and alterations; the courts below found that the tenant had constructed a mezzanine floor without permission. Held that unauthorized construction causing damage to the building is a ground for eviction (Paras 11-15). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Held that Article 227 does not confer power to reappreciate evidence (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the eviction decree on grounds of subletting and unauthorized construction is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioners had sublet the premises and made unauthorized constructions, and thus were not entitled to protection under the Rent Act. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction
- Lodging house tenant not entitled to protection of Rent Act if premises used for residence
- Unauthorized construction by tenant is ground for eviction
- Appellate court's concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Article 227
