Case Note & Summary
This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The deceased plaintiff-landlord, Nivruti Balawantrao Girame, owned a house property in Shrirampur, from which one block was rented to the deceased defendant-tenant, Dhondiram Krishnaji Bhujabal. The parties had a prior litigation in R.C.S. No. 88/1959 that ended in a compromise decree, fixing the standard rent at Rs. 16.87 per month and obligating the tenant to pay rent punctually. From 1 July 1970, the tenant stopped paying rent. On 25 February 1974, the landlord sent a demand notice terminating the tenancy effective 31 March 1974 and calling for arrears. The tenant neither replied nor paid. The landlord filed R.C.S. No. 177/1974 seeking eviction. The tenant contested, claiming that the notice was not served and that there was an oral agreement to pay rent as per convenience; he also alleged that he paid Rs. 270 on 11 March 1974 but no receipt was issued. The trial court, after appreciating evidence, held that the tenant had committed willful defaults and that the notice was duly served despite his refusal to accept the registered post. It decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The tenant’s appeal (R.C.A. No. 166/1980) was dismissed. The tenants then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the concurrent findings. On the question of default, the Court noted that the compromise decree bound the tenant to pay punctually, and the rent receipts on record showed that past payments were always acknowledged by written receipts, discrediting the tenant’s uncorroborated claim of making a payment without a receipt. On notice service, the Court relied on the postman’s testimony that the registered envelope was tendered and refused. It applied the presumption that a notice sent by registered post to the correct address is deemed served unless rebutted. The tenant failed to rebut it. The Court emphasized that in writ jurisdiction, findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse. Finding no perversity, it dismissed the writ petition, holding that once willful default is established under Section 12(3)(a), an eviction decree is mandatory. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Default - Mandatory Eviction Under Section 12(3)(a) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(a) - The tenant had agreed to pay rent punctually under a compromise decree but defaulted from 01-07-1970. The landlord sent a demand notice, but the tenant failed to pay the arrears within one month. The lower courts found the default to be willful and passed an eviction decree. Held, once the conditions of Section 12(3)(a) are satisfied, the court has no discretion and must decree eviction. (Paras 6, 8, 10) B) Evidence - Service of Notice - Presumption of Service by Registered Post - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - The tenant denied receipt of the demand notice. The plaintiff examined the postman who testified that the registered envelope was tendered to the tenant and refused. The court held that sending a notice by registered post to the correct address raises a presumption of due service. The tenant failed to rebut this presumption, and no animus was shown against the postman. Held, service of notice was duly proved. (Para 9) C) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact - Constitution of India - The trial court and first appellate court had concurrently found willful default and valid notice service based on appreciation of evidence. The High Court in writ jurisdiction held that such findings of fact cannot be upset unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The findings were not demonstratedly perverse. Held, writ petition dismissed. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant committed willful default and whether the eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act was properly passed.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The eviction decree was upheld with no costs.
Law Points
- Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act mandates eviction upon willful default and failure to pay within one month of notice
- presumption of service arises from registered post sending to correct address
- concurrent findings of fact are not disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent perversity
