Case Note & Summary
The applicants, claiming to be tenants of the respondents, were involved in two suits: one filed by the applicants for declaration and injunction (R.A.D. Suit No.2325 of 1977) and another filed by the respondents for eviction (R.A.E. & R. Suit No.5105 of 1977). The eviction suit was based on grounds of subletting by applicant No.1 to applicant Nos.2 and 3 without landlord's permission, arrears of rent, and later amended to include acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation. Common evidence was led. The trial court decreed the eviction suit on 13.1.2000 and dismissed the applicants' suit. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment in the declaration suit but confirmed the eviction decree on grounds of subletting and acquisition of alternate accommodation, though setting aside the ground of non-user. Aggrieved, the applicants filed a civil revision application. The High Court considered whether the lower courts erred in finding subletting and acquisition of alternate accommodation. The applicants argued that there was no evidence of permanent residence abroad and that acquisition in a different town does not constitute suitable alternate accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act, citing J. Marathe & Ors. v. P.V. Kaloke. The High Court held that the findings of subletting and acquisition of alternate accommodation were concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, and no substantial question of law arose. The revision application was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rent Act - Landlord must prove exclusive possession and consideration for subletting - The trial and appellate courts found that applicant No.1 had sublet the premises to applicant Nos.2 and 3 without landlord's consent, and the High Court upheld this finding as a concurrent finding of fact not liable to interference in revision (Paras 5-6). B) Rent Control - Acquisition of Suitable Alternate Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rent Act - Acquisition of residential premises in a different town does not ipso facto amount to acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation - However, where the tenant has permanently shifted abroad and acquired accommodation there, it can be considered suitable alternate accommodation - The courts below correctly held that applicant No.1 had acquired suitable alternate accommodation abroad (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in holding that the tenant had sublet the premises and acquired suitable alternate accommodation, warranting eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is dismissed. The order of the appellate Court confirming the eviction decree on grounds of subletting and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation is upheld.
Law Points
- Subletting requires proof of exclusive possession and consideration
- Acquisition of alternate accommodation in different town may not ipso facto be suitable
- Burden of proof on landlord for subletting
- Tenant's acquisition of premises abroad can be suitable alternate accommodation if permanently residing there
