Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Narendra Gulabrao Zade, a landlord, sought eviction of the respondent tenant, Shivcharan Ghashiram Gupta (since deceased, through legal representatives), from suit premises under Clauses 13(3)(ii), (v), and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted permission under clauses (ii), (v), and (vi) but rejected others. The tenant appealed to the Additional Collector, Amravati, who allowed the appeal and set aside the permission. The landlord then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. During final arguments, the claim under clause (ii) (habitual defaulter) was given up, and arguments focused on clause (v) (acquisition of alternate accommodation) and clause (vi) (bonafide need of landlord). The landlord contended that the tenant's son, Anil, who became a joint tenant after the original tenant's death, owned a bungalow in Prabhat Colony, Amravati, constituting alternate accommodation. Medical evidence showed the landlord and his wife suffered from physical disabilities making it difficult to climb stairs, establishing bonafide need for ground floor premises. The appellate authority had given undue importance to trivial matters and interfered with findings of fact without justification. The High Court held that the construction of a bungalow by the tenant's son within the same municipal limits was sufficient to show acquisition of alternate accommodation, and the fact that the original tenant did not shift was not decisive. The medical certificates proved the landlord's bonafide need. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate authority's order, and restored the Rent Controller's permission under clauses (v) and (vi).
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Acquisition of Alternate Accommodation - Clause 13(3)(v) of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Tenant's son owning alternate accommodation - The appellate authority erred in ignoring that the tenant's son, who became a joint tenant, owned a bungalow in the same town, which constituted acquisition of alternate accommodation. The fact that the original tenant did not shift is not decisive. (Paras 2-4) B) Rent Control - Bonafide Need of Landlord - Clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Physical disability of landlord and wife - Medical evidence proved that the landlord and his wife suffered from diseases making it difficult to climb stairs, establishing bonafide need for ground floor premises. The appellate authority gave undue importance to trivial matters. (Paras 3-4) C) Rent Control - Appellate Authority's Interference - Scope - The appellate authority should not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse. In this case, the appellate authority set aside the Rent Controller's order without proper justification, ignoring material evidence. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate authority erred in setting aside the Rent Controller's permission to terminate tenancy under Clauses 13(3)(v) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, on grounds of acquisition of alternate accommodation by the tenant and bonafide need of the landlord.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The order of the Additional Collector, Amravati, dated 06.02.1997 in Appeal No. 9/71(2)/9596 is set aside. The order of the Rent Controller granting permission under Clauses 13(3)(v) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 is restored.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Acquisition of alternate accommodation by tenant
- Clause 13(3)(v) and (vi) of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Scope of appellate authority's interference
- Physical disability as bonafide need
