Case Note & Summary
The case involves a batch of writ petitions filed by tenants (original defendants) against a common judgment and decree passed by the appellate court in eviction suits. The respondent-plaintiff, Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan Shegaon, a public trust, filed suits for eviction against several tenants occupying shops in a building owned by the trust. The trust claimed that the suit premises were bona fide required for its own use, specifically to start a business of selling religious articles like 'Prasad', 'Panchamrut', etc., to devotees visiting the temple. Additionally, the trust alleged that the tenant in one of the suits (Writ Petition No.1806/2019) had sublet the premises to a third person without its consent. The trial court decreed the suits on both grounds. The tenants appealed, but the appellate court confirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the tenants filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the trust had proved its bona fide requirement through the testimony of its trustees and that the tenant's claim of alternative accommodation was not substantiated. Regarding subletting, the court noted that the tenant had inducted one Shri Shankar Lipte into the shop, who was running a business there, and the tenant's assertion that Lipte was a servant was not supported by any evidence. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. It reiterated that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or perversity. Consequently, all writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Sections 16, 17 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord trust sought eviction of tenant from shop premises claiming need for its own business of selling religious articles - Tenant disputed the need and alleged subletting - Courts below decreed eviction on both grounds - High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse - Held that the landlord's need was genuine and tenant failed to prove consent for subletting (Paras 1-34). B) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 16 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Tenant inducted a third person into the suit shop without landlord's consent - Tenant claimed the person was a servant but failed to prove - Courts below found subletting established - High Court affirmed that parting with possession without consent amounts to subletting - Held that the tenant's explanation was not credible (Paras 20-25). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts - Scope limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity - Concurrent findings of fact not to be reappreciated - Held that the impugned orders did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity (Paras 30-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction decree passed by the courts below on grounds of bona fide requirement and subletting is sustainable in law and whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. The eviction decree passed by the courts below is upheld.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Subletting without consent
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
