Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute where the plaintiff, M/s. A.K. Builders, a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, sought eviction of the defendant, Shantabai Tukaram Choudhary, from suit premises in Pune. The suit premises, comprising two portions of 20.18 square meters each, were let out to the defendant in 1958 and 1970 respectively for residential purposes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation, namely a spacious bungalow at Village Dhanori, Pune, along with large agricultural land and other house properties, and that she was permanently residing there with her family. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had kept the suit premises locked and unused for more than six months prior to the suit without any reasonable cause. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed eviction under Sections 13(1)(g), 13(1)(k), and 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The defendant challenged the appellate decree by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the defendant owned a bungalow at Dhanori where she resided, and that the suit premises were not in use. The court held that the acquisition of the bungalow constituted suitable alternative accommodation, and the defendant failed to prove any reasonable cause for non-user. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse, and the High Court declined to interfere. The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Suitable Alternative Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The plaintiff landlord sought eviction on the ground that the defendant tenant had acquired a spacious bungalow at Village Dhanori and owned large agricultural land and other house properties, constituting suitable alternative accommodation. The court held that the tenant's ownership and residence in a bungalow in the same city amounted to acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation, and the tenant failed to prove that the suit premises were required for her use. (Paras 3-4, 7-8) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User of Premises - Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had kept the suit premises locked and unused for more than six months prior to the suit without reasonable cause. The court held that the tenant's plea of occasional use was not supported by evidence, and the tenant failed to discharge the burden of proving reasonable cause for non-user. The concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 5, 9-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity in findings of fact. The court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, as they were based on evidence and not shown to be perverse. (Paras 2, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the tenant had kept the suit premises closed for more than six months without reasonable cause under Section 13(1)(k) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the appellate decree for eviction under Sections 13(1)(k) and 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation
- Non-user of premises without reasonable cause
- Burden of proof on tenant to show reasonable cause for non-user
- Concurrent findings of fact not to be interfered under Article 227
