Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jokhuram Shamsher Gupta, was the original 3rd respondent in a suit filed by the respondent, Jagroop Sahatu Gupta, under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, seeking eviction from a suit room. The respondent claimed to be the tenant of the suit premises and alleged that he had granted leave and license to the petitioner's father (original 1st defendant) and uncle (original 2nd defendant) to use and occupy the premises, with each agreeing to pay monthly compensation of Rs.4/-. The petitioner's father and uncle were initially impleaded but their names were later deleted. The Small Causes Court decreed the suit, holding that the petitioner and his father were licensees, not tenants. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The petitioner's argument that the eviction proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority of the State Government against the respondent, petitioner, and his father were dropped by order dated 15th April 1986, did not establish a tenancy. The High Court held that the writ petition had no merit and dismissed it, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Concurrent Findings of Fact - High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench concurrently held that the petitioner was a licensee, not a tenant, and the High Court found no perversity in those findings (Paras 3-4). B) Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Eviction of Licensee - The suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 is maintainable against a licensee whose license has been terminated - The respondent-plaintiff sought eviction of the petitioner and his father as licensees, and the courts below decreed the suit based on evidence of license and termination (Paras 1-2). C) Evidence - License vs. Tenancy - Burden of Proof - The petitioner failed to prove that he was a tenant; the courts below correctly held that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee based on the pleadings and evidence - The petitioner's father and uncle had agreed to pay monthly compensation of Rs.4/- as licensees, and the eviction proceedings by the Competent Authority were dropped, which did not create a tenancy (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a tenant, could challenge the concurrent findings of the Small Causes Court that he was a licensee, in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The eviction decree was upheld.
Law Points
- Licensee vs. Tenant
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act
- 1882
- Writ jurisdiction limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
