Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute where the landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises under Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. The landlord alleged that the tenant failed to pay rent despite repeated demands, carried out unauthorized permanent alterations (construction of 10 moris, a permanent passage joining an adjoining building, and two iron gates) without permission of the landlord or sanction from the BMC, required the premises reasonably and bona fide for himself, and caused nuisance to other tenants and occupants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the landlord, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court examined the grounds of unauthorized construction and nuisance. On unauthorized construction, the court noted that the tenant had admitted to constructing the moris and the passage, and the BMC had issued a notice for unauthorized construction. The court found that the tenant had not obtained the landlord's consent or BMC sanction, and the construction was of a permanent nature. On nuisance, the court found that the tenant had been causing nuisance by allowing his employees to use the common passage and terrace for bathing and washing, and by storing goods in common areas, which disturbed other occupants. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorized Permanent Construction - Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act - Landlord sought eviction of tenant on grounds including unauthorized permanent construction of 10 moris, permanent passage, and iron gates without landlord's or BMC's permission - Trial court and appellate court decreed eviction - Held that concurrent findings of fact on unauthorized construction and nuisance are not perverse and do not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-10).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act - Landlord alleged tenant caused nuisance to other occupants - Courts below found evidence of nuisance - Held that findings on nuisance are based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the grounds of unauthorized permanent construction and nuisance under the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court.
Law Points
- Eviction on ground of unauthorized permanent construction
- Eviction on ground of nuisance
- Bombay Rent Act Sections 12 and 13
- Tenant's right to challenge eviction decree
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.2932 OF 1999
Shri R.A. Thorat with Mr. P.J. Thorat i/b Smt. Pranali Kakade for the Petitioners; Shri A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel i/b Shri S.V. Sadavarte for the Respondents
Dattatraya Savlaram Ghadigaonkar (since deceased through his legal heirs: Smt. Savita Dattatraya Ghadigaonkar, Shri Nitin Dattatraya Ghadigaonkar, Shri Nilesh Dattatraya Ghadigaonkar, Mrs Leena Amol Ghadigaonkar)
Satyapal Uttamchand Chaudhary (since deceased through his legal heirs: Vivek Satyapal Chaudhary, Smt. Sushma Satyapal Chaudhary)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Eviction suit filed by landlord against tenant under Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
Tenant sought to challenge the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court.
Filing Reason
Tenant filed writ petition against the appellate court's decree confirming eviction on grounds of unauthorized permanent construction and nuisance.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction; appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the tenant's unauthorized permanent construction of 10 moris, passage, and iron gates without landlord's consent or BMC sanction constitutes a ground for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Whether the tenant's acts of nuisance to other occupants justify eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below are perverse and warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/tenant argued that the constructions were not permanent and were necessary for the tenant's business, and that the findings on nuisance were not supported by evidence.
Respondent/landlord argued that the tenant had admitted to the constructions, which were permanent and without permission, and that the nuisance caused to other occupants was established by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact on the grounds of unauthorized permanent construction and nuisance under the Bombay Rent Act were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The tenant's admissions and evidence established the unauthorized construction and nuisance, justifying eviction.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner is the original Defendant/tenant and Respondent is the original Plaintiff/landlord.
A suit was filed by landlord for eviction of tenant from the suit premises on various grounds which were available to him under sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act.
It was contended that the tenant had carried out alterations and additions of permanent nature without permission of the landlord.
It was contended that the tenant had constructed 10 moris in the suit premises.
It was contended that the tenant had constructed permanent passage joining the adjoining building.
It was contended that two iron gates were also constructed.
Thirdly, it was contended that the premises were required reasonably and for bona fide for himself.
Fourthly, it was contended that the tenant caused nuisance to the other tenants and occupants.
Procedural History
Landlord filed eviction suit in trial court. Trial court decreed eviction. Tenant appealed to appellate court, which confirmed the decree. Tenant then filed writ petition in High Court under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
