Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Milind Rajkumar Wagholikar (Shah), was the landlord of a suit property bearing CTS No. 506/34, new CTS No. 866, admeasuring about 7500 sq. ft. at Baramati. He filed Regular Civil Suit No. 152 of 1994 against the respondents for recovery of possession and arrears of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) on grounds of illegal subletting, bona fide requirement, and default. The suit was dismissed on 14.03.1997 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baramati. Along with the suit, an application for fixing standard rent (CMA 25/1993) was also heard, and standard rent was fixed at Rs.100 per month excluding taxes. The petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 88/1997 challenging the dismissal of the suit, while respondent No.1 filed Civil Revision Application No. 1/1998 challenging the standard rent fixation. The 2nd Additional District Judge, Baramati, dismissed both the appeal and revision by a common judgment dated 06.02.2002. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the appellate judgment. The petitioner alleged that after the death of respondent No.1's father, the tenancy devolved upon respondent No.1, who stopped the dairy business and illegally sublet the suit property to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who operated a garage. The petitioner also claimed bona fide requirement for his son's business. The respondents denied subletting and contended that respondent No.1 continued to carry on business in the suit property. The courts below found that the landlord failed to prove subletting as the tenant remained in possession and there was no exclusive possession given to the alleged subtenants. The bona fide requirement was also not established as the landlord had other suitable accommodation. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned judgment.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Illegal Subletting - Burden of Proof - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(e) - Landlord alleged that tenant sublet the suit property to respondents 2 and 3 who operated a garage - Trial court and appellate court found that landlord failed to prove subletting as tenant continued to carry on business and there was no exclusive possession given to subtenants - Held that the findings of fact by lower courts are not perverse and do not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 4-6). B) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rent Act - Landlord claimed need for starting business of his son - Courts below found that landlord had other suitable accommodation and the need was not genuine - Held that the concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence and cannot be disturbed (Paras 4-6). C) Rent Control - Standard Rent - Fixation - Section 11 of Bombay Rent Act - Standard rent was fixed at Rs.100 per month by trial court - Appellate court upheld the fixation - Held that no interference is called for (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord proved illegal subletting and bona fide requirement for possession under the Bombay Rent Act?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned common judgment and decree/order dated 06.02.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Baramati. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish subletting
- Bona fide requirement must be genuine and reasonable
- Standard rent fixation is a separate proceeding
