Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged concurrent orders of eviction passed by the courts below in a civil revision application before the Bombay High Court. The respondent-landlord had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 95 of 1995 seeking recovery of possession of the tenanted premises and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2412/-. The landlord claimed to have purchased the suit property from one Niyajbee Subhan Mistri. The father of the defendant, Adamji, was originally inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 18/-. After Adamji's death on 04.09.1984, the defendant, his son, occupied the premises. The previous owner Niyajbee had filed a suit (R.C.S. No. 10 of 1985) against the defendant, but the plaint was returned for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The subsequent purchaser landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy and demanding rent, but the tenant raised fictitious issues, leading to the suit. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The tenant then filed the present revision. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and noted that the tenant had failed to pay rent from 01.09.1984 to 31.10.1995. The court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The tenant did not demonstrate any such error. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Concurrent Findings - The tenant challenged concurrent orders of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The courts below found that the tenant had failed to pay rent from 01.09.1984 to 31.10.1995 - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity - No such error was shown - Revision dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below directing eviction of the tenant for arrears of rent suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference in civil revision.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Jurisdictional error
- Rent control
- Eviction for arrears of rent
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
