Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hanmant s/o Vitthalrao Ghodke, was a tenant in a municipal house No. 172/2 at Lokhand Galli, Latur, owned by the respondent, Chandrashekhar Malikarjunappa Bidwe. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Latur, solely on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller framed a single issue: whether the tenant was a willful defaulter, and answered it in the affirmative, ordering eviction. The tenant appealed to the District Court, Latur, in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 9.3.1990, confirming the eviction order. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter was listed for final hearing multiple times. On 23.8.2006, the petition was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the petitioner. It was restored on application. Again on 21.4.2008, it was dismissed for non-prosecution and restored. A third dismissal occurred on 3.5.2010, and the petition was restored subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. On 2.12.2010, at the request of counsel, the matter was adjourned to 6.12.2010, but court time ran out. On 7.12.2010, the court waited 15 minutes but no one appeared for the petitioner. The court noted the repeated defaults and dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Willful Default - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 13(1)(a) - The landlord sought eviction of tenant on ground of willful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller and District Judge found tenant to be willful defaulter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution due to tenant's repeated failure to appear despite restoration of petition thrice. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's writ petition challenging the eviction order should be entertained despite repeated non-appearance.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. The eviction order is upheld.
Law Points
- Willful default
- Eviction
- Rent control
- Non-prosecution
- Dismissal for default
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (12) 6
Writ Petition No. 1104 of 1990
Hanmant s/o Vitthalrao Ghodke
Chandrashekhar Malikarjunappa Bidwe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Eviction petition by landlord against tenant for willful default in payment of rent.
Remedy Sought
Tenant sought to challenge the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the District Judge.
Filing Reason
Tenant was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9.3.1990 passed by the District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989 confirming the eviction order.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller, Latur in File No. 1987/RCA/0/24 dated 8.8.1989 ordered eviction. District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989 dated 9.3.1990 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order.
Issues
Whether the tenant was a willful defaulter in payment of rent.
Submissions/Arguments
None appeared for the petitioner to argue the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's persistent failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple opportunities, including restoration after three dismissals. The court found no merit in entertaining the petition on merits in the absence of the petitioner.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9.3.1990, passed by the learned District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 1989.
The petitioner herein is tenant and the respondent herein is the original landlord, who filed eviction petition for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of willful default in making payment for the suit premises.
However, even after waiting for 15 minutes, none appears for the petitioner.
Procedural History
The landlord filed eviction petition before Rent Controller, Latur, which ordered eviction on 8.8.1989. Tenant appealed to District Judge, Latur, who dismissed the appeal on 9.3.1990. Tenant filed writ petition in 1990. The petition was dismissed for default on 23.8.2006, restored; dismissed again on 21.4.2008, restored; dismissed on 3.5.2010, restored on payment of costs. On 7.12.2010, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(a)
