Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a partnership firm, was a tenant in a building owned by the respondents. The building was demolished and reconstructed, and the tenant obtained a compromise decree in 1969 in RAD Suit No.225/1764 of 1967, which included a clause fixing rent at Rs.1043.75ps per month. Despite this, in 1971 the tenant applied for standard rent fixation under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. The landlords then filed RAE & R Suit No.982/5569 of 1971 for eviction on grounds of rent default and illegal subletting. The trial court dismissed the tenant's standard rent application in 1974, and the tenant's revision and special civil application were also dismissed. In 1991, the eviction suit was decreed, and the tenant's appeal was dismissed in 1999. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and subletting. The court noted that the tenant had not paid rent as per the compromise decree and had sublet the premises to third parties, as evidenced by a partnership deed and affidavits. The court held that the scope of Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perverse findings, and since the findings were based on evidence and not perverse, no interference was warranted. The writ petition was dismissed, and the civil application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Standard Rent Fixation - Compromise Decree - Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant applied for standard rent fixation despite consent decree fixing rent at Rs.1043.75ps per month - Courts below held that the agreed rent in the compromise decree constitutes standard rent - Held that the tenant cannot unilaterally seek standard rent fixation after consent decree (Paras 2-5). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction on grounds of rent default and illegal subletting - Tenant failed to pay rent and sublet premises to third parties - Courts below found subletting proved through documentary evidence including partnership deed and affidavits - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse (Paras 6-10). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and appellate court - High Court can only interfere if findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in an eviction suit based on rent default and illegal subletting.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; Civil Application No. 2187 of 2008 disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- scope of judicial review
- concurrent findings of fact
- standard rent fixation
- compromise decree
- subletting
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
