Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the appellate court's order decreeing eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The landlord had issued a demand notice, which was received by the tenant, but no dispute was raised within 30 days. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting possession to the landlord. The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, found no perversity or error of law in the appellate court's judgment. The tenant had been in arrears since 1962-63, and the receipts were in the tenant's name. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Default - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Default in Payment of Rent - The tenant failed to pay rent despite a valid demand notice and did not raise any dispute within 30 days. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed eviction. The High Court upheld the decree, finding no perversity or error of law in the appellate court's decision. (Paras 1-5)
B) Rent Control - Appellate Court's Power - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Reversal of Trial Court's Order - The appellate court, after reappreciating evidence, found that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent. The High Court held that such a finding, based on evidence, does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit and decreeing possession on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's decree of eviction. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent
- Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Eviction decree
- Appellate court reversal
- Concurrent finding of default
- No substantial question of law
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 156
Writ Petition No. 195 of 1998
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Joshi for the respondent
Shri Ramesh Ramgopal Daga
Shri Vasant Baburao Khandare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the appellate court's decree of eviction on ground of default in rent payment.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-tenant sought to quash the appellate court's order decreeing eviction and restore the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The tenant defaulted in payment of rent despite a valid demand notice, leading to the landlord filing an eviction suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit on 28/4/1992. The appellate court reversed and decreed eviction.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's dismissal and decreeing eviction on ground of default.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the appellate court's finding of default.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner-tenant argued that the appellate court's order was perverse and not based on evidence.
The respondent-landlord contended that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and no dispute was raised within 30 days of the demand notice.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's finding of default in payment of rent under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, based on evidence, does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution unless perverse or erroneous in law.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the reversal order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nashik, (appellate Court), whereby the respondent-landlord’s appeal has been allowed and the order of dismissal of the suit was set aside, resultantly, the respondent-landlord’s suit has been decreed, basically on the ground of default.
There is no dispute in the present case, that the demand notice was issued and received by the petitioner-tenant. There was no dispute raised immediately within 30 days and or no application of any kind was filed within the said period.
Procedural History
The landlord filed an eviction suit before the Civil Judge, S.D., Nashik (trial court) after issuing a demand notice. The trial court dismissed the suit on 28/4/1992. The landlord appealed to the Additional District Judge, Nashik (appellate court), which allowed the appeal and decreed eviction. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(b)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
