Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant-tenant (Shivnath Anandram Mundada) challenging a decree of eviction passed by the courts below under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The original plaintiff-landlord (Ramdayal Surajmal Rathi) had filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The petitioners (legal representatives of the deceased tenant) then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. On the issue of default, the court noted that the tenant had not paid rent for more than six months and had not tendered the arrears on the first day of hearing as required under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The courts below had concurrently held that the tenant was a defaulter. On the issue of subletting, the landlord alleged that the tenant had sublet the premises to one Ashok Rathi without consent. The courts below found that the tenant had parted with possession and allowed Ashok Rathi to use the premises. The tenant failed to prove that Ashok Rathi was a member of his family or that the subletting was lawful. The High Court held that the findings of fact were not perverse or based on no evidence, and therefore, no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(a) - The tenant failed to pay rent for more than six months and did not tender the arrears on the first day of hearing. The courts below concurrently held that the tenant was a defaulter. The High Court refused to interfere, holding that the findings of fact were not perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(e) - The landlord alleged that the tenant had sublet the premises without consent. The courts below found that the tenant had parted with possession and allowed another person to use the premises. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the tenant failed to prove that the alleged subtenant was a member of his family or that the subletting was lawful. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding default in payment of rent and subletting by the tenant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rent control
- eviction
- default in payment of rent
- subletting
- concurrent findings
- writ jurisdiction
- limited scope
