Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two cross writ petitions challenging a decree of eviction passed against the tenant. The landlady, Smt. Pramila Vijay Phansalkar, filed a suit for eviction against the tenant, Smt. Manoramabai Vishwanath Limaye (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), and her son, in the Small Causes Court at Pune. The suit was based on grounds of damage to the suit property, permanent construction, nuisance, and annoyance under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Pune, on 19 February 1994. The tenant filed Writ Petition No. 2124 of 1994 challenging the appellate order, while the landlady filed Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1995 seeking enhancement of certain reliefs. The High Court, presided by Justice D. G. Karnik, heard both petitions together. The court noted that the trial court and appellate court had concurrently found that the tenant had made permanent construction and caused damage to the property, and that the tenant's activities amounted to nuisance and annoyance. The court observed that these were findings of fact based on evidence and were not perverse. The court held that under writ jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The tenant's counsel argued that the construction was not permanent and that the damage was minor, but the court found no merit in these submissions. The court also considered the landlady's petition seeking higher costs or damages, but did not find sufficient grounds to interfere. Consequently, the court dismissed the tenant's writ petition and allowed the landlady's writ petition in part, confirming the eviction decree. The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in rent control matters and upholds the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Damage to Property - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant made permanent construction and caused damage to the suit property - The courts below concurrently found that the tenant had made permanent construction and caused damage, which was not disputed - Held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction (Paras 1-3). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance and Annoyance - Section 13(1)(c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant caused nuisance and annoyance to the landlady - The trial court and appellate court found that the tenant's activities amounted to nuisance - Held that the findings are based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-3). C) Rent Control - Eviction - Permanent Construction - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant made permanent construction without consent - The courts below held that the construction was permanent and unauthorized - Held that the concurrent findings are binding in writ jurisdiction (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court regarding damage to the suit property, permanent construction, and nuisance caused by the tenant warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 2124 of 1994 (tenant's petition) and allowed Writ Petition No. 1477 of 1995 (landlady's petition) in part, confirming the eviction decree.
Law Points
- Eviction on ground of damage to property
- permanent construction
- nuisance and annoyance
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Section 13(1)(a)
- Section 13(1)(c)
- Section 13(1)(e)
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of writ jurisdiction
