Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lotan Tryambak Khairnar, was a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 9.45 ps. The respondents, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 30.04.19 and had failed to pay the same despite demand. The trial court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings in a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting that the respondents were served but unrepresented, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The court observed that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent within the statutory period and thus was liable for eviction. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Arrears of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent since 30.04.19 and failed to deposit the same within the statutory period - The courts below concurrently held that the tenant had not paid rent for more than six months and was liable for eviction - The High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact - Held that the findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and liable for eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Eviction decree under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Rent arrears
- Default in payment of rent
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 60
Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1992
Mr. L.V. Sangit h/f Mr. V.J. Dixit for the petitioner
Narayan Hari Shinde (since deceased by his heirs: Gangabai Narayan Shinde (since deceased through legal heir Ramdas Parmanand Khairnar) and Chandrabai Narayan Shinde)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent findings of eviction decree passed by courts below under the Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was in arrears of rent since 30.04.19 and failed to deposit the same, leading to eviction suit.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rent Act, 1947; appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent and liable for eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below warrant interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that the findings of the courts below were erroneous and required interference.
Respondents did not appear despite service.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, based on proper appreciation of evidence, that the tenant was in arrears of rent and failed to deposit the same within the statutory period, do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error, and hence no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though served, none appears for the respondents.
The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner (original defendant) on the ground of arrears of rent. The trial court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The petitioner appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 12(3)(b)
- Constitution of India: 227
