Case Note & Summary
The respondent, Sidaramappa Kashinath Lingshetti, is the owner and landlord of a house property bearing municipal no. 351/1/2B, city survey no. 3384/4B situated at Solapur. The property consists of two floors: the ground floor has 5 rooms and a hall, used for business by the petitioner, Mishrilal Ramjivan Sarda (since deceased, through L.Rs.), and the first floor also has 5 rooms and a hall. On 21st July 1981, the respondent issued a notice to quit, terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and possession. Upon the petitioner's failure to comply, the respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 681 of 1982 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, seeking possession. The trial court passed a decree for eviction on the grounds of subletting of a part of the suit premises and the respondent's reasonable and bonafide requirement. The contention of default in payment of rent was rejected. The petitioner appealed to the Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1991, which was dismissed on 7th September 1999. The present writ petition challenges that appellate order. The High Court heard the parties and dismissed the petition, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant sublet a part of the suit premises without landlord's consent - The trial court and appellate court found that the tenant had parted with possession of a portion of the premises in favor of a third party - Held that subletting was established and eviction was justified (Paras 3-4).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation - The courts below held that the requirement was reasonable and bonafide - Held that the landlord's need was genuine and the tenant's appeal was dismissed (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction decree on grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement of the landlord was correctly confirmed by the appellate court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the eviction decree passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Subletting
- Bonafide requirement
- Eviction decree
- Rent control
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (02) 40
Writ Petition No. 6447 of 1999
Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.M. Pradhan with Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the respondent.
Mishrilal Ramjivan Sarda, since deceased through L.Rs. (1. Satyanarayan Mishrilal Sarda, 2. Leelavati Rameshwar Rathi)
Sidaramappa Kashinath Lingshetti
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging appellate order confirming eviction decree.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the judgment and order dated 7th September 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the eviction decree.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the appellate court's confirmation of the eviction decree on grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur) passed eviction decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 681 of 1982 on grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement. Appellate court (Additional District Judge, Solapur) dismissed Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1991 on 7th September 1999.
Issues
Whether the eviction decree on the ground of subletting was correctly confirmed by the appellate court.
Whether the eviction decree on the ground of bonafide requirement was correctly confirmed by the appellate court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued against the findings of subletting and bonafide requirement.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below on subletting and bonafide requirement were not interfered with as no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th September 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solapur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and thereby confirming the decree for eviction passed against him.
The trial Court passed a decree for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of subletting of a part of the suit premises and also on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the respondent landlord.
Procedural History
The respondent landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 681 of 1982 for eviction. The trial court decreed eviction on grounds of subletting and bonafide requirement. The tenant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1991, which was dismissed on 7th September 1999. The tenant then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
