Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (original defendants) were a partnership firm occupying premises owned by the respondent (original plaintiff) partnership firm. Initially, the parties were partners in the plaintiff firm, but after separation, the defendants continued to occupy the suit premises. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction in the Small Causes Court at Bombay, claiming that the defendants were licensees whose license had been terminated. The defendants contended that they were tenants. The trial court decreed the suit, ordering eviction and directing an inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the defendants filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the matter and examined the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court noted that the defendants failed to produce any evidence to prove tenancy, such as a rent receipt or tenancy agreement. The plaintiffs' case that the defendants were licensees was supported by the partnership deed and subsequent conduct. The High Court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and were not perverse. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree and mesne profits order were upheld.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Eviction - Burden of Proof - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108 - The plaintiffs sought eviction of defendants from suit premises claiming they were licensees; defendants claimed tenancy. The Small Causes Court decreed eviction and ordered inquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The Appellate Bench confirmed. The High Court held that the defendants failed to prove tenancy and the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse, thus no interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order XX Rule 12 CPC - The trial court ordered inquiry into mesne profits from date of suit till delivery of possession. The High Court upheld this order, noting that the defendants were in wrongful possession after termination of license. (Paras 3, 10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not interfered with. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendants were tenants or licensees in the suit premises and whether the eviction decree and mesne profits order were sustainable.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Eviction decree and mesne profits order upheld.
Law Points
- Eviction decree
- Mesne profits
- Order XX Rule 12 CPC
- Partnership property
- Burden of proof
- Concurrent findings
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
