Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hari Pandurang Patil, was a tenant in a house property bearing CTS No.2121/43 situated at Navi Peth, Jalgaon, which was the ancestral property of Respondent No.1, Anupsing Mahendrasing Shikh. Respondent No.1 used to collect rent and was authorized to induct tenants for himself and his brother. The petitioner was in possession of the suit tenement. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and Respondent No.2, Namdeo Waman Narkhede, alleging that the petitioner had sublet the premises to Respondent No.2 without his consent. The trial court, the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No.88/1983, reversed the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit for eviction. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the appellate court's judgment. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner had failed to prove that Respondent No.2 was a member of his family or that the landlord had consented to the subletting. The court noted that the petitioner had not examined Respondent No.2 as a witness, and the documentary evidence showed that Respondent No.2 was a separate tenant. The High Court held that the appellate court's finding of subletting was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Eviction - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant alleging subletting without consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed and decreed eviction. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the tenant had sublet the premises to Respondent No.2 without the landlord's consent, as the tenant failed to prove that Respondent No.2 was a member of his family or that the landlord had consented. Held that subletting without consent is a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's subletting of the suit premises to Respondent No.2 without the consent of the landlord (Respondent No.1) justified eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the appellate court's decree of eviction against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent
- Eviction decree
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Section 13(1)(e)
- Appellate court reversal
- Concurrent findings
