Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Mariyambi Abbas, was a tenant of a single room (15x10 ft.) forming part of house bearing Municipal No. 1190 at Ahmednagar, at a monthly rent of Rs.11/-. The deceased respondent, Narayan Govind Shedge, was the landlord. The landlord filed a suit for eviction (RCS No.796/1979) on two grounds: (i) that the tenant was a willful defaulter in payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1970 to 31.7.1979, and (ii) that the suit premises were required for his personal bonafide use. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the first appellate court (RCA No.154/1988) vide judgment dated 30.7.1990. The tenant challenged the appellate judgment by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that both courts below had concurrently found the tenant to be a willful defaulter and that the landlord's need was bonafide. The High Court held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. No such error was shown. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Willful Default - Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction on ground of willful default - Tenant failed to pay rent from 1.1.1970 to 31.7.1979 - Courts below concurrently found default willful - High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated in writ petition (Paras 1-3).
B) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction on ground of bonafide need - Landlord required suit premises for personal use - Courts below accepted landlord's need as genuine - High Court upheld concurrent findings - Held that no perversity or jurisdictional error shown (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-tenant was a willful defaulter in payment of rent and whether the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide personal use.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Willful default
- Bonafide requirement
- Eviction decree
- Rent control
- Concurrent findings
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 409
Writ Petition No.420 of 1991
Mr. A.B. Gatne for petitioner, Mr. V.S. Bedre for respondent
Narayan Govind Shedge (Deceased through L.R. Avinash Narayan Shedge)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging eviction decree in rent control matter
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to quash the appellate judgment confirming eviction decree
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 30.7.1990 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in RCA No.154/1988 confirming eviction decree in RCS No.796/1979
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction; first appellate court confirmed the decree
Issues
Whether the petitioner was a willful defaulter in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act?
Whether the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide personal use under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the findings of the courts below were erroneous and that she was not a willful defaulter.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. The tenant's failure to pay rent for over nine years constituted willful default, and the landlord's bonafide need was established.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 30.7.1990, rendered by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in an appeal (RCA No.154/1988) confirming eviction decree rendered in suit (RCS No.796/1979).
The petitioner is admittedly tenant in respect of a single room of 15x10 ft. which is part of a house property bearing Municipal No. 1190, situated at Ahmednagar.
The trial Court and the first appellate Court discarded the petitioner's contentions and concurrently held that the petitioner is a willful defaulter and that the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide personal use.
Procedural History
Landlord filed RCS No.796/1979 for eviction on grounds of willful default and bonafide need. Trial court decreed eviction. Tenant appealed to District Court (RCA No.154/1988), which confirmed the decree on 30.7.1990. Tenant then filed Writ Petition No.420 of 1991 in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 5.1.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 12(3)(a), 13(1)(g)
