Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent eviction decrees passed by two courts below. The respondent-landlord had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 807 of 1982 in the court of Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik, seeking possession of suit premises under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (the Rent Act). The premises were let to the petitioner-tenant for running a dispensary. The landlord's case was that the tenant had ceased to use the premises for the purpose for which they were let, keeping it locked and unused for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit without any reasonable cause. The landlord also contended that the tenant, being a government servant, could not legally run a private dispensary. The trial court, while rejecting the ground of arrears of rent, decreed the suit on the ground of non-user. The first appellate court confirmed that decree, leading to the present writ petition by the tenant. The tenant argued that the initial burden under Section 13(1)(k) was on the landlord to prove continuous non-user for the specific period, which the landlord failed to discharge; that the pleadings were deficient in not specifying the exact period of non-user; that Section 13(1)(k) required complete closure, whereas there was evidence of occasional use; and that the tenant had reasonable cause due to his government employment and intention to return. The landlord contended that he had discharged the initial burden by his own testimony and that of a witness conducting business on the ota of the suit premises, and that the tenant had merely denied non-user without providing any documentary or credible evidence of running the dispensary. The landlord further relied on an adverse inference against the tenant for failing to produce documents in his possession. The court, after hearing both sides and examining precedents, held that the initial burden on the landlord is discharged once credible evidence of non-user is led, and the onus then shifts to the tenant to establish reasonable cause. The court found that the plaint, read as a whole, sufficiently alleged the cause of action, and the absence of specific dates was not fatal. The tenant's vague evidence of occasional visits and his government service did not constitute reasonable cause, and the lower courts' concurrent findings were not perverse. The High Court thus dismissed the writ petition, affirming the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(k).
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Burden of Proof - Initial Burden on Landlord - Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The landlord filed a suit for eviction on ground of non-user of premises let for a dispensary. The initial burden to prove that the tenant had not used the premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause lies on the landlord. Once the landlord leads credible evidence, the burden shifts to the tenant to show reasonable cause. The lower courts rightly held that the landlord discharged the initial burden, and the tenant failed to rebut it (Paras 7, 17, 21-22). B) Rent Control - Pleading Requirements - Specific Averment of Period of Non-User - Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The tenant contended that the plaint did not specify the exact period of non-user. The court held that paragraph 4 of the plaint read as a whole sufficiently made out a case of non-user, and the absence of specific dates did not vitiate the cause of action. Pleadings must be read harmoniously (Paras 9-10, 21). C) Rent Control - Non-User - Complete Closure Not Required - Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The tenant argued that Section 13(1)(k) requires total closure and that he occasionally used the premises. The court, relying on precedent, observed that substantial non-user is sufficient, and the tenant’s vague evidence of occasional use did not disprove continuous disuse. The tenant’s failure to produce documentary evidence of running the dispensary led to an adverse inference (Paras 8, 13, 23). D) Rent Control - Reasonable Cause - Tenant’s Intention to Return - Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(k) - The tenant contended that his government service and intention to resume use constituted reasonable cause. The court held that mere intention without any concrete steps or evidence does not amount to reasonable cause. The lower appellate court’s failure to specifically frame an issue on reasonable cause was not fatal since parties led evidence on it (Paras 18, 20, 22). E) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Concurrent Findings - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact as the judgments were not perverse or based on no evidence. The scope under Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are vitiated by error of law or procedure (Paras 14, 20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below correctly applied Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, and whether the landlord had discharged the initial burden of proving continuous non-user of the suit premises for six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the landlord had discharged the initial burden of proving non-user and the tenant failed to establish reasonable cause. The concurrent findings of fact were not perverse, and the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 was upheld.
Law Points
- Initial burden lies on landlord to prove continuous non-user for six months without reasonable cause under Section 13(1)(k)
- upon discharge of initial burden the onus shifts to tenant to establish reasonable cause
- mere denial by tenant not sufficient
- pleadings must contain specific averment of the period of non-user
- Section 13(1)(k) requires proof that state of non-user continued till date of suit
- complete closure not an absolute requirement but substantial non-user may suffice
- adverse inference can be drawn against tenant for non-production of relevant documents
- High Court under Article 227 does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
