Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners (original defendants) challenging the judgment and order dated 27th September 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune. The appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (original plaintiff/landlord) and passed a decree for eviction against the petitioners. The petitioners were tenants in a property for which a court receiver had been appointed. The respondent purchased the property in a court auction. On 7th December 1997, the court receiver issued a notice to the petitioners stating that they were in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.4275/- up to 31st December 1972 and Rs.4425/- from 1st January 1973 to 30th November 1977, as well as education cess arrears of Rs.77.50 from 1.4.1968 to 30.9.1971, Rs.84/- from 1.10.1971 to 31.03.1974, and Rs.396/- from 1.4.1974 to 30.11.1977. The total arrears of rent and education cess amounted to Rs.9257.50/-. The petitioners failed to pay the amount despite the notice. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed that decision and decreed eviction. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The petitioners-tenants were in arrears of rent and education cess amounting to Rs.9257.50/-. The appellate court allowed the landlord's appeal and passed a decree for eviction. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was just and proper, and the petition under Article 227 was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
B) Rent Control - Maintainability of Suit - Court Receiver - The petitioners argued that the suit was not maintainable as the court receiver was in possession. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the landlord had a right to sue for eviction for non-payment of rent despite the appointment of a court receiver. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in passing a decree for eviction against the petitioners for non-payment of arrears of rent and education cess, and whether the suit was maintainable when a court receiver was in possession of the property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's decree for eviction against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Eviction decree for arrears of rent and education cess
- Landlord's right to sue despite court receiver
- Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Article 227 Constitution of India
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 30
Writ Petition No. 4526 of 1991
Mr. T.D. Deshmukh for the Petitioners, Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Respondents
Smt. Hanjabi Ratanchand Solanki, Gitamal alias Otarmal Ratanchand Solanki, Bastimal Ratanchand Solanki, Jethmal alias Sheshmal Ratanchand Solanki, Dilip Ratanchand Solanki
Hansraj Mishrimal Jain (since deceased through legal heirs: Smt. Kanugabai Hansraj Jain Ranka, Shri Ashok Hansraj Jain Ranka, Manju Ashok Rathod, Pravin Hansraj Jain Ranka, Mahendra Hansraj Jain Ranka, Saroj Ramesh Dhumavat)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an appellate decree for eviction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the judgment and order dated 27th September 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune, which allowed the landlord's appeal and decreed eviction.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were tenants in arrears of rent and education cess, and the appellate court passed an eviction decree against them.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had dismissed the landlord's suit for eviction. The appellate court reversed that decision and decreed eviction.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was justified in passing a decree for eviction for non-payment of arrears of rent and education cess.
Whether the suit for eviction was maintainable when a court receiver was in possession of the property.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the suit was not maintainable as the court receiver was in possession of the property.
The respondent/landlord contended that the petitioners were in arrears of rent and education cess and were liable to be evicted.
Ratio Decidendi
The landlord's right to sue for eviction for non-payment of rent is not affected by the appointment of a court receiver. The appellate court's order was just and proper, and no interference was warranted under Article 227.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th September, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune, allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent (Landlord), thereby passing a decree for eviction against the petitioners.
It appears that the court receiver was appointed initially in respect of the suit property. The respondent appears to have purchased the property in a court auction.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit. The landlord appealed to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Pune, who allowed the appeal and decreed eviction on 27th September 1991. The tenants then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 10th January 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(a)
