Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sureshchandra Doiphode, is the landlord of shop no.20/93, C.T.S. No.4580 at Hingoli. He filed an eviction petition under Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 against the respondent-tenant, Uttam Jadhav (since deceased, represented by legal representatives). The landlord claimed that he required the suit shop bona fide for his son to start a business. The Rent Controller at Hingoli allowed the eviction petition by order dated 27.2.2001. The tenant appealed to the District Judge, Parbhani, who by judgment dated 21.3.2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order. The landlord then filed the present civil revision application in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the District Judge had not properly appreciated the material on record. The court noted that the landlord's need for the shop for his son was genuine and that the appellate court had erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Rent Controller. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the District Judge's order, and restored the eviction order of the Rent Controller. The court directed the tenant to vacate the suit shop within three months.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 15 of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from suit shop claiming bona fide requirement for his son - Rent Controller allowed eviction - District Judge in appeal reversed the order - High Court held that the appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the landlord's need was genuine - Revision allowed and eviction order restored (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge was justified in allowing the tenant's appeal and setting aside the Rent Controller's eviction order without properly appreciating the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the judgment and order of the District Judge dated 21.3.2003, and restored the eviction order of the Rent Controller dated 27.2.2001. The tenant was directed to vacate the suit shop within three months.
Law Points
- Rent control
- Eviction
- Bona fide requirement
- Hyderabad Houses (Rent
- Eviction and Lease) Control Act
- 1954
- Section 15
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Reappreciation of evidence
