Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for eviction filed by the owners (plaintiffs) against the tenants (defendants) in respect of two shops, on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947. The original landlord and tenant had died, and their legal heirs succeeded. In 1986, the wife and seven children of the predecessor-landlord filed Suit No.585/1986 for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit in 2001. The tenants appealed, but the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court dismissed the appeal. The tenants then filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC before the Bombay High Court. The tenants raised three main contentions: (a) change of circumstances as the owners inducted a new tenant in an adjacent shop; (b) suppression of facts by the owners regarding two plaintiffs securing government employment; and (c) abatement of the suit due to non-substitution of legal representatives of the 3rd defendant who died during the suit. The High Court examined each contention. On the issue of abatement, the court held that the suit does not abate against the deceased defendant alone; the decree can be executed against the remaining defendants. Moreover, the tenants did not raise this issue before the lower courts. Regarding suppression of facts, the court found that the employment of two plaintiffs was not material to the bona fide requirement, which was for the family's business. The tenants failed to prove that the need ceased. On the change of circumstances, the court noted that the adjacent shop was not part of the suit property, and the owners' requirement for the suit property remained. The court dismissed the revision application and the civil application for additional evidence, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947 - Eviction - The owners filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. Both the trial court and appellate court decreed the suit. The tenants challenged the concurrent findings in revision. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement cannot be interfered with in revision unless there is a perversity or jurisdictional error. The court found no such error. (Paras 2-4, 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - Non-substitution of legal representatives - The tenants argued that the suit abated because the owners failed to bring on record the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant who died during the suit. The High Court held that the suit does not abate as against the deceased defendant alone; the decree can still be executed against the remaining defendants. Moreover, the tenants did not raise this issue before the lower courts. (Paras 3, 13-15) C) Rent Control - Suppression of Facts - Bona Fide Requirement - The tenants alleged that the owners suppressed the fact that two plaintiffs secured government employment after filing the suit. The High Court held that this fact was not material to the bona fide requirement as the requirement was for the family's business, not for personal employment. The tenants failed to prove that the owners' need ceased to exist. (Paras 6, 16-18) D) Rent Control - Change of Circumstances - Subsequent Induction of Tenant - The tenants contended that the owners inducted a new tenant in an adjacent shop, indicating no bona fide requirement. The High Court held that the adjacent shop was not part of the suit property, and the owners' requirement for the suit property remained unaffected. The tenants' application to bring additional evidence was dismissed. (Paras 5, 19-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the owners' bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, are sustainable in law, and whether the suit abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives of a deceased defendant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and the Civil Application for additional evidence, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. The court held that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the findings regarding bona fide requirement, and the issues of abatement and suppression of facts were not made out.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rent Control Act
- 1947
- Abatement of suit due to non-substitution of legal representatives
- Suppression of facts by plaintiffs
- Change of circumstances after decree
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
