Case Note & Summary
The present civil revision application arose from an eviction suit filed by respondent No.1, Parit Samaj Seva Mandal, an unregistered society, through its president and panchas, against the original tenant Hilal Natthu Patil. The suit, being RCS No. 263 of 1992, sought recovery of arrears of rent and possession of residential premises bearing CTS No. 1420, Shirpur, on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide and reasonable requirement under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The property had been let out to the tenant since 1986 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The plaintiff society claimed that it needed the premises for its office, meetings, record-keeping, and residence for its secretary. The original tenant died during the pendency of the suit, and his legal heirs, Gorakh Hilal Patil (son) and Smt. Shantabai Hilal Patil (wife), were brought on record as defendants. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, decreed the suit solely on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, while rejecting the ground of default. The lower appellate court dismissed the tenants' appeal, confirming the decree of eviction. The tenants then preferred the instant civil revision application before the Bombay High Court, challenging the concurrent findings on the grounds that the suit was not maintainable as filed by an unregistered society without joining all 262 members as necessary parties and without obtaining permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They also contended that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their bona fide requirement, as the witnesses examined lacked proper authority and knowledge of the society's affairs, and that the tenants would suffer greater hardship if evicted. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that there was no statutory bar to an unregistered association filing a suit through its office-bearers, that the suit was in effect a representative suit by the panchas, and that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 were directory and not mandatory. They submitted that the tenant had never disputed ownership, had paid rent to the plaintiff, and that the concurrent findings on bona fide requirement were based on evidence and should not be interfered with. The High Court, after hearing both sides and examining the record, dismissed the civil revision application, thereby upholding the eviction decree. The court found that the suit was maintainable and that the concurrent findings on bona fide requirement did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction. The decision affirmed the lower courts' view that the landlord's need was genuine and that the tenants had failed to demonstrate any perversity in the appreciation of evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suit by Unregistered Society - Maintainability - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 8 - The High Court dismissed a revision against concurrent findings that a suit for eviction by an unregistered society through its president and panchas was maintainable; non-joinder of all members or absence of permission under Order 1 Rule 8 did not render the suit incompetent when no prejudice was shown (Paras 4-13). B) Rent Control - Eviction on Bona Fide Requirement - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(g) - The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact that the landlord society bona fide required the premises for office, meeting, and residence of secretary, and that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord; evidence of witnesses held sufficient (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an eviction suit filed by an unregistered society through its president and panchas is maintainable without joining all members or without following the procedure under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Whether the plaintiff proved bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application dismissed. Judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 21st September, 2007 confirmed. Eviction decree upheld.
Law Points
- An unregistered society or association of persons is not a legal entity and cannot sue in its own name
- all members are necessary parties in a suit by or against it
- Order 1 Rule 8 CPC enables representative suit
- permission under Order 1 Rule 8 is directory not mandatory
- concurrent findings of fact on bona fide requirement cannot be disturbed in revision unless perverse
- under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- landlord must prove bona fide and reasonable requirement
- hardship to tenant must be considered
