Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shiv Kumar I. Agarwal, through his constituted authority, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 25.06.2003 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No.283 of 2000. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's decree of eviction dated 29.10.1999 in L.E. & C. Suit No.112/134 of 1991 and dismissed the suit. The suit premises, Flat No.19, Vimala Mahal, Pedder Road, Mumbai, was the subject matter. The petitioner was the original plaintiff (landlord) and the respondents were the original defendants (tenants) or their legal representatives. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming that the suit premises were required for his son's business. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the landlord had not proved reasonable and bona fide requirement. The High Court, in its judgment dated 03.11.2025, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the landlord's son was already running a business from other premises and there was no evidence to show that the suit premises were genuinely required. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, concluding that no interference was warranted under Article 227.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Eviction Suit - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from suit premises claiming bona fide requirement for his son's business - Trial court decreed eviction but Appellate Bench reversed - High Court upheld reversal, finding that landlord failed to prove reasonable and bona fide requirement as the son was already running business from other premises and no evidence of need for suit premises - Held that the appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree of eviction and dismissing the suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's order dated 25.06.2003 which set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the eviction suit.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement
- Reasonable requirement
- Landlord-tenant relationship
- Eviction suit
- Burden of proof
- Appellate court's reversal
- Section 13(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Article 226 and 227 Constitution of India
