Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the landlord, Gopaldas Khushaldas Parmar, challenging the judgment and order dated 21st July 2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) in Appeal No. 52 of 2008. The Appellate Bench had allowed the appeal filed by the tenant, Sanmukhlal P. Shah, and set aside the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court. The landlord had filed RAE Suit No. 58 of 2005 against the tenant under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, seeking possession of the suit premises on the grounds of reasonable and bonafide requirement and non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Act. The Trial Court negatived the ground of bonafide requirement, which was not pressed in appeal or revision. The only ground in dispute was non-user. The landlord alleged that the tenant had not been in use and occupation of the suit premises from March/April 2002 and had been absent for more than six months from September 2002 to September 2004, except for a brief period when the premises were used by a neighbour. The tenant contended that he had reasonable cause for non-user due to his ill health, including paralysis, heart ailment, and other ailments, which required him to stay with his son for treatment. The Trial Court decreed eviction, but the Appellate Bench reversed the finding, holding that the tenant had reasonable cause. The High Court, in revision, examined the scope of Section 16(1)(n) and held that the landlord must prove not only non-user for six months but also that such non-user was without reasonable cause. The court noted that the tenant had pleaded and led evidence regarding his health issues, and the landlord failed to cross-examine him or rebut that evidence. The court also observed that the Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found the tenant's explanation reasonable. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Appellate Bench's order and confirming that the tenant had reasonable cause for non-user.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Non-User - Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Burden of Proof - The landlord must prove not only that the tenant has not used the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the filing of the suit, but also that such non-user was without reasonable cause. The tenant's explanation of ill health and family circumstances can constitute reasonable cause, and the burden shifts to the landlord to rebut it. (Paras 6-10) B) Rent Control - Reasonable Cause for Non-User - Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Tenant's Explanation - The tenant's plea of suffering from paralysis, heart ailment, and other health issues, along with the need to stay with his son for treatment, amounts to reasonable cause for non-user. The landlord's failure to cross-examine the tenant on these aspects or lead contrary evidence results in the tenant's explanation being accepted. (Paras 7-9) C) Rent Control - Appellate Court's Interference - Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Findings of Fact - The Appellate Court, being the final court of fact, can reappreciate evidence and set aside findings of the trial court if they are perverse or based on misreading of evidence. In this case, the Appellate Court correctly held that the tenant had reasonable cause for non-user. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench was justified in setting aside the eviction decree on the ground of non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, when the tenant had provided an explanation of ill health and family circumstances as reasonable cause for non-user.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) dated 21st July 2009, which set aside the eviction decree. The court held that the tenant had reasonable cause for non-user of the suit premises.
Law Points
- Non-user of premises
- Reasonable cause
- Burden of proof
- Section 16(1)(n) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Eviction decree
- Landlord-tenant
