Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original plaintiff and landlord, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 of the appellate court in RCA No.244 of 1999, which reversed the trial court's decree of eviction in RCS No.25 of 1989. The landlord had let out a shop admeasuring 33x6 feet to the tenant, but after renovation, a smaller shop of 22x6 feet was let out. The tenant claimed two shops of 3x22 feet each were let out. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of personal bonafide need for his son's business and structural changes made by the tenant. The trial court decreed eviction on 8.7.1999, but the appellate court set aside the decree. The High Court admitted the petition on 30.9.2004 and expedited hearing. After hearing arguments, the High Court found that the appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had reversed the trial court's findings without valid reasons. The High Court noted that the landlord's need for the suit shop for his son was bonafide and that the tenant had made unauthorized structural changes reducing the shop size. The High Court relied on several judgments including Kamgar Kalyan Kendra Chalisgaon Vs. Kashinath Brindavan Bundelkhandi, Anil Bajaj and another Vs. Vinod Ahuja, Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi, Motor Cycle House and Metro Cottage Industries Vs. Kamalabai Dattatraya Kale, Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava, Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan, and Rajendrakumar Sharandas Sharma Vs. Shrikrushna. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree of eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Personal Bonafide Need - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(g) - Landlord sought eviction for his son's business - Trial court decreed eviction, appellate court reversed - High Court held that the appellate court failed to appreciate evidence and reversed findings without valid reasons - Held that the landlord's need was bonafide and tenant's structural changes were established (Paras 1-20). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Structural Changes - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(b) - Tenant made unauthorized alterations reducing shop size from 33x6 ft to 22x6 ft - Trial court found structural change, appellate court ignored - High Court restored trial court's finding - Held that tenant's act of reducing dimensions amounted to structural change (Paras 2-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree of eviction on grounds of personal bonafide need and structural changes by the tenant.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 of the appellate court in RCA No.244 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. Decree of eviction passed by the trial court in RCS No.25 of 1989 on 8.7.1999 is restored.
Law Points
- Personal bonafide need of landlord
- structural changes by tenant
- eviction under rent control legislation
- appreciation of evidence by appellate court
- interference under Article 227
