Case Note & Summary
The revision applicant, Shrirang Harikishan Agrawal, was the landlord of non-residential shop premises bearing Municipal No.59/3 at Main Road, Latur. The premises were let out to M/s. Asha Electric Stores, a sole proprietary concern of Gopikishan Ramkishan Agrawal (respondent No.1), at a monthly rent of Rs.91.75 payable in advance. The landlord filed eviction proceedings on two grounds: willful default in payment of rent from 5th November 1979 to 5th October 1980, and bonafide requirement for starting his own Kirana business, as he had no other non-residential premises. The trial court decreed eviction on both grounds. The tenant appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the decree and dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord then filed this civil revision application in the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court had erred in reversing the trial court's findings. Regarding bonafide need, the landlord had clearly stated his requirement and there was no evidence that he had other premises. The appellate court's observation that the landlord could use residential premises for business was not supported by law. Regarding willful default, the tenant claimed to have paid rent to the landlord's father, but no authority was shown. The High Court held that the appellate court's findings were perverse and not based on evidence. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the trial court's decree of eviction was restored. The tenant was granted time till 31st December 2012 to vacate the premises.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's requirement for non-residential premises for own business - Landlord proved he had no other non-residential premises and wanted to start Kirana shop - Appellate court reversed trial court's finding without proper appreciation of evidence - Held that the appellate court's finding was perverse and not based on evidence (Paras 3-5). B) Rent Control - Willful Default - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant defaulted in payment of rent from November 1979 to October 1980 - Tenant claimed rent was paid to landlord's father but no evidence of authority - Trial court found willful default - Appellate court reversed - Held that the appellate court's conclusion was erroneous and not supported by evidence (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree of eviction on grounds of willful default and bonafide need under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 21st December 1990 passed by the Appellate Court in Rent Appeal No.13 of 1988 is set aside. The decree of eviction passed by the trial court is restored. The tenant is granted time to vacate the premises till 31st December 2012.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- willful default in payment of rent
- eviction under rent control legislation
- burden of proof on landlord
- appreciation of evidence by appellate court
