Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a landlord-tenant dispute concerning three ground-floor rooms in a house at Ahmednagar. The original plaintiff (landlord) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 792 of 1983 seeking possession of the premises on three grounds: personal bonafide requirement, default in payment of rent, and acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant, Ganesh Waman Shevgaonkar, died, and his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial court, by its judgment dated 20 February 1989, decreed the suit on the grounds of bonafide requirement and acquisition of alternative accommodation. Aggrieved, the tenants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1989 and a Civil Revision Application before the District Judge, Ahmednagar. The District Judge, by a common judgment dated 2 December 1991, dismissed the appeal but reversed the finding on bonafide requirement; however, the decree for eviction was confirmed solely on the ground that the tenants had acquired suitable alternative accommodation as contemplated by Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control) Act, 1947. Cross writ petitions followed: the tenants filed Writ Petition No. 233 of 1992 challenging the decree, and the landlord filed Writ Petition No. 1001 of 1992 seeking restoration of the decree on the ground of bonafide requirement. Before the High Court, the tenants argued that only one of them (Vishwas Ganesh Shevgaonkar) had purchased alternative premises and that the courts below erred in attributing that acquisition to all tenants. The landlord contended that the trial court had rightly decreed the suit on both grounds and that the appellate court wrongly disturbed the finding on bonafide requirement. The High Court, after considering the record, observed that there were concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below that the tenants had acquired alternative accommodation. It held that such findings were based on evidence and warranted no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the tenants’ writ petition was dismissed. By that time, the suit premises had already been demolished and possession was with the landlord; thus, the issue raised in the landlord’s petition had become academic. The landlord’s writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The result was that the eviction decree stood confirmed, and the landlord retained possession.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Alternative Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l), Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control) Act, 1947 - The lower appellate court recorded a finding that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation, based on evidence; in writ jurisdiction, the High Court declined to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact and held that the decree for eviction was justified - Held, Writ Petition No. 233 of 1992 dismissed; decree for possession confirmed on the ground of alternative accommodation (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court erred in confirming the eviction decree on the ground of alternative accommodation under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents Act, 1947, and whether the original landlord was entitled to a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 233 of 1992 filed by the tenants is dismissed. Rule discharged. Writ Petition No. 1001 of 1992 filed by the landlord is disposed of as the premises have been demolished and are in the landlord's possession, rendering the issue academic. The eviction decree stands confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control) Act
- 1947
- ground of alternative accommodation
- concurrent findings of fact
- writ jurisdiction
