Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-tenant filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The suit premises comprised three rooms and a bathroom in Baramati, Pune, with a monthly rent of Rs.35/-. The landlord issued a notice dated 14/5/1979 demanding arrears of rent. The tenant paid Rs.800/- on 30/5/1979 and also filed Misc. Application No.41/1979 for fixation of standard rent. The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1982 for possession and arrears. The trial court fixed standard rent at Rs.50/- per month and on 20/10/1985 held the tenant to be a defaulter, decreeing the suit. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The High Court noted that the tenant had not paid rent regularly and the payment of Rs.800/- was not sufficient to cover the arrears. The court observed that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and no substantial question of law arose. The petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction Decree - The tenant failed to pay arrears of rent despite demand notice dated 14/5/1979 and only paid Rs.800/- on 30/5/1979, which was insufficient to cover arrears. The trial court and appellate court concurrently held the tenant to be a defaulter. The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, as no perversity or error of law was shown. Held that the tenant's conduct amounted to default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner-tenant was a defaulter under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the tenant was a defaulter and the eviction decree was valid.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of Article 227
- Bombay Rent Act Section 12(3)(a)
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 158
Writ Petition No. 2362 of 1991
Mr. A.P. Kulkarni i/b A.A. Kumbhakoni for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Kate for the respondent
Smt. Suman Shankar Unde, since deceased through her legal heir and representative; Shankar Martand Unde
Shri Shamsunder Lekhraj Khatri
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings of eviction decree for default in rent payment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court decreeing the suit for possession.
Filing Reason
The tenant was held to be a defaulter in payment of rent under the Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit for possession on 20/10/1985; appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner-tenant was a defaulter under the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the payment of Rs.800/- on 30/5/1979 was sufficient to cover arrears and that the standard rent was fixed later.
Respondent argued that the tenant was a defaulter as the payment was not made in time and was insufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that under Article 227, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or error of law. The tenant's failure to pay rent regularly and the insufficient payment of Rs.800/- constituted default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent finding of Courts below, decreeing the suit for possession of the suit premises in favour of the respondent-landlord, on the ground of defaulter, as contemplated under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
The trial Judge decided the M.A.No. 41/79 along with the suit and had fixed the standard rent at Rs. 50/- per month.
The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties and material placed on the record, held that the petitioner-tenant was defaulter for the period from 1/1/1978 to 31/7/1982.
The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the evidence and material placed on record. There is no perversity or error of law apparent on the face of the record.
Procedural History
The landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1982 for possession and arrears. The tenant filed Misc. Application No.41/1979 for fixation of standard rent. The trial court decided both together on 20/10/1985, fixing standard rent at Rs.50/- per month and decreeing the suit for possession on the ground of default. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(a)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
