Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant of the respondent-landlord, challenged concurrent findings of the courts below which decreed eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The monthly rent was Rs.10/-. A demand notice dated 7/12/1984 was issued for arrears of rent, to which the tenant did not reply or raise any dispute within 30 days. No application for fixation of standard rent was filed. The trial court decreed the suit on 21/8/1986, directing possession and payment of arrears. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The High Court, under Article 227, found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on ground of default - Sections 12, 13 Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant failed to pay arrears of rent despite demand notice dated 7/12/1984 and did not reply or raise any dispute within 30 days - Courts below decreed eviction - Held that concurrent findings of default are based on evidence and not perverse, warranting no interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting decree for possession on the ground of default under the Bombay Rent Act are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below granting decree for possession in favour of the landlord.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent
- Demand notice
- No reply within 30 days
- No dispute raised
- Concurrent findings
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Bombay Rent
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 157
Writ Petition No. 405 of 1994
Mr. Rajendra S. Desai for the petitioner, Mr. K.Y. Mandlik for the respondent
Shri Ramkrishna Waman Madye
Smt. Manorama Bhalchandra Dhargalkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings of eviction on ground of default in rent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to challenge the decree for possession passed by courts below.
Filing Reason
Tenant defaulted in payment of rent and did not reply to demand notice within 30 days.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction on 21/8/1986; appellate court confirmed on appeal.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of default are perverse or warrant interference under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued against the concurrent findings.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a tenant fails to reply to a demand notice for arrears of rent within 30 days and does not raise any dispute, the concurrent findings of default are based on evidence and not perverse, and no interference under Article 227 is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent findings given by the Courts below of granting decree for possession in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of default, as contemplated under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
The demand notice dated 7/12/1984 issued for arrears of rent. There was no reply or resistance to the said demand notice within 30 days.
The basic submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the concurrent findings are perverse and therefore, this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no substance in the submission.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for eviction on ground of default. Trial court decreed suit on 21/8/1986. Tenant appealed; appellate court dismissed appeal and confirmed decree. Tenant then filed writ petition under Article 227 in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
- Constitution of India: Article 227
