Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant, was a tenant in a shop owned by the respondents, original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and bonafide and reasonable requirement of the landlord under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. At trial, the plaintiffs examined Ms. Samta Kadam, wife of plaintiff 2, who held a power of attorney (Ex-68) from the plaintiffs. The defendant examined himself. The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendant was a defaulter, but succeeded in proving bonafide requirement and greater hardship. The defendant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The defendant then filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court noted that the trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs required the suit premises bonafide and reasonably for the business of plaintiff No.2's son and for residence of plaintiff No.2's daughter, and that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs if eviction was not granted. The High Court held that these concurrent findings of fact were not perverse or based on no evidence, and therefore could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's bonafide requirement for suit premises for son's business and daughter's residence - Trial court and appellate court concurrently found requirement bonafide and reasonable - High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved that they bonafide and reasonably require the suit premises and that greater hardship would be caused to them if eviction decree is not passed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs bonafide and reasonably require the suit premises and that greater hardship would be caused to them if eviction is not granted.
Law Points
- Bonafide and reasonable requirement of landlord
- Greater hardship
- Power of attorney holder can depose on behalf of principal
- Eviction on ground of bonafide requirement
