Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohan Vishwanath Mulay, filed a writ petition against the judgment and order dated 29th March 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent tenant, Shamrao Raghunathrao Karyakarte, and dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the petitioner landlord. The suit premises, a room admeasuring about 10' x 10' on the first floor of House No.39-C, City Survey No. 8576/11, belonged to the family of the petitioner and his brothers. In 1966, the petitioner's mother let out the suit premises to the respondent. The petitioner was employed at Thane in Maharashtra State Electricity Board and was transferred to Solapur on 23rd December 1987. Upon transfer, he came to Solapur and initially stayed in a small room courtesy of Subhash Divekar as he had no accommodation. He noticed that the respondent had shifted to Pune about two years prior to 1987 due to his transfer and had kept the suit premises locked. The petitioner requested the respondent to surrender the premises, which the respondent initially promised but later refused. Consequently, the petitioner filed RCS No. 252 of 1988 for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement, non-user, and acquisition of suitable residential premises by the respondent at Pune. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting that the respondent was served but absent, examined the evidence. The trial court had held that the respondent had not used the suit premises for a considerable period and had acquired suitable alternative accommodation at Pune. The appellate court, however, reversed the decree without properly appreciating the evidence. The High Court found that the appellate court's reasoning was flawed and that the trial court's findings were correct. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's decree for eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Non-User - Acquisition of Suitable Alternative Accommodation - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(g), (k) - Landlord sought eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement and tenant's non-user and acquisition of alternative accommodation at Pune - Trial court decreed eviction; appellate court reversed - High Court held that the appellate court failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding tenant's transfer to Pune and locking of suit premises, and landlord's bonafide need - Held that the tenant had acquired suitable residential premises at Pune and had not used the suit premises for a considerable period, warranting eviction (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree for eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement and non-user of the suit premises.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The judgment and order dated 29th March 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur is set aside. The decree for eviction passed by the trial court is restored.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement
- Non-user of premises
- Acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation
- Burden of proof on tenant
- Reappreciation of evidence by High Court under Article 227
