Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Orbit Super Market Private Limited and the legal heirs of Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, challenged concurrent orders of the trial court and appellate court directing them to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit property, house no.220, Ward no.86, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, Civil Lines, Nagpur, to the respondents, Smt. Mukta Arvind Bobde and others. The respondents had filed a suit for recovery of possession on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting without consent. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the petitioners had failed to prove payment of rent and had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent. The court also upheld the direction for an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Landlord-Tenant - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 108 - The suit property was let out to the petitioners; the respondents claimed default in payment of rent and subletting without consent. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the petitioners in default and subletting, granting decree for possession and mesne profits. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order 20 Rule 12 CPC - The courts below directed an enquiry into mesne profits from the date of suit till delivery of possession. The High Court upheld this direction as proper. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent orders directing eviction of the petitioners from the suit property on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting without consent are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of eviction and the direction for mesne profits.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- Default in payment of rent
- Subletting without landlord's consent
- Mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC
- Section 108 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 179
Writ Petition No.4777 of 2014
Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.V. Shah for Petitioners; Mr. Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Masood Shareef for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-A and 2-B; Mr. P.A. Abhyankar for Respondent No.3
Orbit Super Market Private Limited, Smt. Rajashree w/o Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, Ku. Maitrayee d/o Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, Yajnawalkya s/o Dr. Shrikant Jichkar
Smt. Mukta Arvind Bobde, Shri Vinod s/o Late Arvind Bobde (since dead through L.Rs. Smt. Ranjana wife of Vinod Bobde and Shri Arjun son of Vinod Bobde), Madhav s/o Babasaheb Solao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent orders of eviction in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the decree for possession and mesne profits granted in favor of respondents.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the concurrent orders directing them to hand over possession of the suit property on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting without consent.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits; appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and subletting are perverse or based on no evidence.
Whether the direction for enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC is proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of the courts below were erroneous and not supported by evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition, concurrent orders are being challenged whereby decree has been granted in favour of the respondents directing the petitioners herein to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of suit property...
An enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has also been directed from the date of filing of the suit till possession is actually handed over to the respondents.
Procedural History
Respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession. Trial court decreed the suit. Petitioners appealed, which was dismissed. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 20 Rule 12
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 108
