Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil revision application filed by the original defendants (legal heirs of the deceased tenant) against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court decreeing eviction. The plaintiff-landlord (respondent no.1) filed Civil Suit No.572 of 2002 before the Small Cause Court, Pune, seeking possession of the suit premises (a shop admeasuring 46.451 sq.mtrs. on the ground floor of a building on CTS No.411/A, Ravivar Peth, Pune) on grounds of subletting and unauthorised construction by the tenant's legal heirs. The trial court decreed the suit on 16th March 2013, which was upheld by the District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.771 of 2013 on 29th September 2018. The applicants (defendant nos.1(b) to 1(e)) then filed the present revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and held that the lower courts had correctly found that the defendants had sublet the premises and made substantial structural alterations without the landlord's consent, which constituted grounds for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The court noted that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors or perversity, and the applicants failed to demonstrate any such error. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction of tenant's legal heirs on ground of subletting and unauthorised construction - The courts below concurrently found that the defendants had sublet the suit premises and carried out structural alterations without landlord's consent - Held that such concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorised Construction - Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant's legal heirs made substantial additions and alterations to the suit property without the landlord's written consent - The trial court and appellate court held that such acts amounted to breach of tenancy terms - Held that the findings are based on evidence and no interference is warranted (Paras 5-8). C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining jurisdictional errors or perversity - The applicants failed to demonstrate any such error in the concurrent findings of fact - Held that the revision application is devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing eviction on grounds of subletting and unauthorised construction are sustainable in law and whether the revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against such findings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing eviction. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction under Bombay Rent Act
- Unauthorised construction/alteration without consent is a ground for eviction
- Legal heirs of deceased tenant must prove lawful succession and compliance with tenancy terms
- Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts not interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC unless perverse or without jurisdiction
