Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant of a room in Nashik since more than 25 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 14.04 inclusive of education cess, was sued for eviction by the respondents-landlords on the ground of default in payment of rent. Due to a dispute among the landlords regarding ownership and a demand notice from the Municipal Council for taxes, the tenant deposited part of the rent amount from 10.6.1976 to 11.8.1982 without specific intimation to the landlords. The landlords issued a demand notice dated 1/12/1982 demanding arrears from 1/8/1978 to 31/12/1982 for 52 months, which was duly served on 21st December, 1982. The tenant did not reply to the notice, nor did he file any application for fixation of arrears within one month as required under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of default and non-compliance with Section 12(3)(a) were correct and that there was no ground for interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Default - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Tenant failed to pay arrears of rent despite demand notice and did not apply for fixation of arrears within one month - Courts below decreed eviction - Held that concurrent findings of default and non-compliance with Section 12(3)(a) are correct and no interference is warranted under Article 227 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and failure to comply with Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of default and eviction decree.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent
- Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Concurrent findings
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Eviction decree
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 160
Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1991
Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar with Mr. Rohit Pawaskar for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. Jagdish Reddy for the respondents
Rambhaji Baslkirhsna Buchade
Radhabai Madhavrao Khode, Rajendra Madhavrao Khode, Surendra Madhavrao Khode, Narendra Mahdavrao Khode
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings in a suit for eviction on ground of default in payment of rent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit for eviction.
Filing Reason
The petitioner-tenant defaulted in payment of rent and failed to comply with Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for eviction; the appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and failure to comply with Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that there was a dispute among landlords and that he had deposited part of the rent amount.
Respondents contended that the tenant did not reply to the demand notice and did not apply for fixation of arrears within one month.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and non-compliance with Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 are correct and do not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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, thereby the respondent’s suit for eviction on the ground of default, as contemplated under Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 has been decreed.
There was no application filed for fixation of arrears of rent within one month, as contemplated under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Procedural History
The respondents-landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default. The trial court decreed the suit. The petitioner-tenant appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(a)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
