Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the original defendant-tenant, Pandurang Narayan Kadam, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below which granted a decree for possession in favor of the respondent-landlord, Ramchandra Bapu Jadhav, on the ground of bonafide need under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The landlord needed the premises for his own use and occupation, and his evidence remained unrebutted. Both the trial court and the appellate court, after considering comparative hardship, decreed possession. The tenant argued that the findings were perverse and required interference. However, the High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides and reviewing the record, found no perversity in the concurrent findings. The court held that the view taken was reasonable and within the framework of law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, rule discharged, and interim stay vacated. At the request of the tenant's counsel, six months' time was granted to vacate the premises.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Eviction Decree - Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought possession for his own use and occupation, supported by unrebutted evidence. Both courts below granted decree after considering comparative hardship. The High Court held that the view taken was reasonable and within the framework of law, with no perversity warranting interference. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below granting a decree for possession on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord should be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim stay vacated. Six months time granted to tenant to vacate.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Concurrent findings
- Comparative hardship
- Bombay Rent Act
