Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, heirs of the original tenant Shankar Dagadu Pardeshi, challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court decreeing eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The respondents, landlords, had sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence. The trial court decreed eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined whether the findings were perverse or based on no evidence. It noted that the tenant had not rebutted the presumption under Section 13(1)(g) and that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction on ground of bona fide need for residence - Tenant failed to rebut presumption under Section 13(1)(g) - Courts below decreed eviction - High Court held that concurrent findings of fact are binding unless perverse or based on no evidence - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- presumption under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rent Act
- burden of proof on tenant to rebut presumption
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 210
Writ Petition No. 5674 of 1986 and Writ Petition No. 5791 of 1987
Mr. Savaji i/b Mr. Prafulla Shah for the petitioners. None for the respondent.
Shankar Dagadu Pardeshi (deceased) through his heirs: Dattaraya Shankar Pardeshi (deceased) through his heirs: 1) Smt. Vimal Dattatraya Pardeshi, Guardian of Applicant No.5, 2) Swati Dattatraya Pardeshi, 3) Ramchandra Dattatraya Pardeshi, 4) Rahul Dattatraya Pardeshi, 5) Birju Dattatraya Pardeshi
1. Smt. Muktabai Savalaram Bagwan, 2. Smt. Shakuntala Ishwar Suryawanshi, 3. Smt. Chandrasena Shankar Karnal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging concurrent findings in eviction suit under rent control legislation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (tenants) sought to quash the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The landlords filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction; appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement are perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not supported by evidence.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The tenant failed to rebut the presumption under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The concurrent findings of the courts below are binding on this Court unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
The tenant has not rebutted the presumption under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Procedural History
The landlords filed a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed eviction. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed two writ petitions before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(g)
