Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision application filed by the tenants (M/s A.P. Hordiwala & Co. and its partners) against a judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, which upheld a decree of ejectment passed by the trial court in RAE Suit No.1298 of 1968. The landlords (Dr. Rustam J. Patel and others, trustees of Seth F.M. Patel Agiary Charity Trust) had sought eviction on grounds of subletting and unauthorised construction. The trial court found that the tenants had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent and had made permanent alterations that diminished the value of the property. The appellate bench affirmed these findings. In revision, the tenants argued that the findings were perverse and that the courts below had misapplied the law. The High Court, however, held that the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The court found that the concurrent findings of fact on subletting and unauthorised construction were based on evidence and were not perverse. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, and the decree of ejectment was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant sublet premises without landlord's consent - Held that subletting is a ground for eviction and concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse (Paras 5-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorised Construction - Section 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant made permanent alterations diminishing value of property - Held that such alterations constitute ground for eviction (Paras 5-10). C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope of interference - Held that revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the findings of the courts below on subletting and unauthorised construction are sustainable in law and whether the revision application under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
Revision application dismissed; decree of ejectment upheld.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction
- Unauthorised construction by tenant amounts to permanent alteration diminishing value of property
- Tenant estopped from denying landlord's title after attornment
- Burden of proof on tenant to show lawful subletting
- Revision Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless perverse
