Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Smt. Saroja Parmeshwaran, daughter of the original tenant L.K. Mani, challenging the judgment and order dated 5 June 1996 passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, which dismissed the tenant's appeal against a decree for possession. The original tenant, Mr. Mani, had taken the suit premises on rent at Rs.45 per month and lived there until about 1974. According to the landlady, Mrs. Tara Bole, Mr. Mani retired and shifted to his native place at Coimbatore around 1973-74, securing suitable residence there. After serving notice, she filed R.A.E. Suit No.7401 of 1974 in the Small Causes Court for possession under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act), on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable residence. The original tenant appeared and denied having acquired suitable residence. During the pendency of the suit, Mr. Mani died, and his two sons and two daughters were brought on record as legal representatives. They adopted the written statement filed by the original tenant. The trial court, after considering evidence, passed a decree for possession. On appeal, the appellate bench confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, one of the daughters filed the present writ petition. The legal issues centered on whether the tenant had acquired a suitable residence. The petitioner argued that the tenant had not permanently shifted and intended to return, but the courts below found that the tenant had moved with his family and secured accommodation in Coimbatore. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, confirming the decree for possession.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Acquisition of Suitable Residence - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought possession on ground that tenant acquired suitable residence at Coimbatore after retirement - Tenant denied but evidence showed he shifted with family and secured accommodation - Trial court and appellate court decreed possession - Held that the tenant's act of moving to native place and residing there with family constitutes acquisition of suitable residence, and the burden to prove intention to return is on tenant (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant had acquired a suitable residence within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, thereby entitling the landlord to a decree for possession.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the decree for possession passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court.
Law Points
- Acquisition of suitable residence
- Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rent Act
- burden of proof on landlord
- tenant's intention to return
- legal representatives' rights
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 39
Writ Petition No.3259 of 1998
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Sr. Counsel with S.N. Nagvadaria i/b M/s. Mehta & Co. for the petitioner; Mrs. U.K. Shah i/b Shri Kishor D. Shah for respondent nos.1(a) to 1(c)
Padmakar Sitaram Bole, Amit Padmakar Bole, Ms. Shama Padmakar Bole, Sushila Subramaniam, Shri S. Keshav, Shri S. Dorai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the appellate order of the Small Causes Court confirming a decree for possession in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (daughter of original tenant) sought to set aside the decree for possession and the appellate order.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of the tenant's appeal against the decree for possession passed on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable residence.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Small Causes Court) decreed possession under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the tenant's appeal and confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the tenant had acquired a suitable residence within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Whether the findings of fact by the courts below were perverse or warranted interference under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the tenant had not permanently shifted to Coimbatore and intended to return to Mumbai, and that the acquisition of residence was not suitable.
The respondent argued that the tenant retired, moved with his family to Coimbatore, and secured accommodation there, constituting acquisition of suitable residence.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act, a landlord is entitled to possession if the tenant has acquired a suitable residence. The burden is on the tenant to prove that the residence acquired is not suitable or that he intended to return. In this case, the tenant retired and shifted with his family to his native place, securing accommodation there, which constitutes acquisition of suitable residence. The findings of fact by the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference under Article 227.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5 June 1996 passed by an appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai dismissing the tenants appeal against a decree for possession.
The Petitioner is the daughter of L.K. Mani (Subramaniam), the original defendant, who was a tenant in occupation of the suit premises.
It appears that Mr.Mani, the original tenant came to Mumbai for a job. He took on rent the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.45/ and was living in the suit premises till about 1974.
According to the respondent, Mr.Mani, the original tenant on his retirement shifted to his native place at Coimbatore in the year 197374 or thereabout and secured a suitable residence there.
After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court passed a decree for possession under section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents (Hotels & Lodging Rates Control Act), 1947 (for short “the Bombay Rent Act”) i.e. on the ground that the tenant had acquired suitable residence.
Procedural History
The original landlady Mrs. Tara Bole filed R.A.E. Suit No.7401 of 1974 in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for possession under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed possession. The tenant appealed to the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeal on 5 June 1996. The tenant's daughter filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 16 July 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(l)
