Case Note & Summary
The judgment disposes two civil revision applications filed by tenants challenging decrees of ejectment passed by the District Court in favour of the respondents, who are landlords of two shop premises in Panchgani. The suits, filed in 1985, sought possession on grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need to start a flour mill, rice holler, and chilly pounding machine, utilizing the experience of Ramchandra, husband of one of the landladies. The tenants contested, and the trial court held the landlords' need to be bona fide but dismissed the suits on the ground of greater hardship to the tenants. The landlords appealed, and the tenants filed cross-objections. The District Court allowed the appeals, confirming bona fide need and holding that the landlords would suffer greater hardship, and consequently decreed the suits. In revision, the tenants argued that the concurrent findings on bona fide need were perverse, that the need could be satisfied by possession of only one of the two premises, and that the decree should be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearances, as a notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forests had declared the area a heritage zone and the municipality refused permission for the proposed activity. The landlords defended the findings and contended that their need was for providing vocation to their children, not limited to a specific business, and both premises were required for different parts of the business. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the additional documents sought to be introduced, held that the concurrent findings on bona fide need were proper and did not call for interference under revisional jurisdiction. It noted that the need was for the children of the landladies, and delays during litigation or changed avocations did not extinguish the need. The court rejected the contention that the decree should be restricted to one premises, as the landlords required both shops for the proposed composite business. Further, it held that the permissibility of the specific business in light of environmental restrictions was for the authorities to decide, and the decree could not be made conditional; the landlords were free to start any other permissible activity. References were made to Supreme Court decisions confirming that a landlord is not bound to start the exact business pleaded. The court also declined the request for a contingent decree. Consequently, both revision applications were dismissed, and the ejectment decrees were upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - The High Court in revision will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on bona fide need made by lower courts unless they are perverse. In the present case, both the trial court and the appellate court had properly appreciated evidence and concurrently held the landlords' need to be bona fide; the High Court declined to interfere (Paras 7, 13) B) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Core need vs. specific business pleaded - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The need of the landlords to provide a vocation to their children is the core concern; mentioning a specific activity is incidental. During protracted litigation, even if children take up other avocations or the specific activity becomes impermissible, the need does not vanish. The landlords may start some other permissible business (Paras 6, 11-12) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Partial eviction not warranted when entire premises required - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Where the landlords need both tenanted premises for different parts of a proposed business (flour mill, chilly pounder, customer area, rice mill), the court cannot restrict the decree to one premises. Consequently, there is no requirement to balance the comparative hardship of the two tenants inter se (Paras 8-10) D) Rent Control - Effect of Subsequent Events - Environmental restrictions and contingency decree - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The permissibility of a specific business activity under environmental notifications is a matter for the relevant authorities, not the court deciding eviction. The decree of ejectment cannot be made contingent upon the landlords obtaining necessary clearances, as they may opt for any permissible activity to provide vocation to their children (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the findings of the Courts below on bona fide need of the landlords call for interference in revisional jurisdiction; Whether the decree for ejectment should be restricted to one of the two premises; Whether the decree should be made contingent upon the landlords securing environmental clearance; Whether additional evidence should be permitted regarding permissibility of the proposed activity.
Final Decision
Both civil revision applications are dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court are affirmed.
Law Points
- concurrent findings on bona fide need not interfered in revision
- core need for providing vocation to children is not defeated by subsequent events
- landlord not bound to start specific business pleaded
- entire premises needed precludes partial eviction
- mentioning an activity is incidental not core of need
