Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijay Shrihari Khandar, was a tenant in a part of a house bearing No.31 C.T.S. 2035, Sheet No.8 at Ramtek, owned by the respondents, Shriram Sitaram Gaikwad and Smt. Shobha Shriram Gaikwad. The respondents purchased the property by registered sale deed on 01.10.1987 from Nalini Joshi and others. The appellant was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.125/-. The respondents required the premises bonafide and reasonably for their own occupation. Since the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises, 1989 applied, they approached the Rent Controller for permission to issue notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Rent Controller granted permission, and the respondents sent a notice on 28.05.1993 terminating the tenancy and seeking possession by 30th June, 1993. The appellant did not vacate, leading to the filing of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, damages at Rs.40/- per day, and notice charges. The appellant contested, claiming he was a tenant of Smt. Nalinibai Joshi and that the respondents were not entitled to possession. The 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ramtek, decreed the suit and ordered the appellant to pay Rs.5,647/- plus future mesne profits at Rs.30/- per day. The appellant appealed to the District Court at Nagpur, which was dismissed by the 14th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court considered whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide requirement were perverse. The appellant argued that the respondents had other accommodation and that the requirement was not bonafide. The respondents contended that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the courts below had considered the evidence and concluded that the respondents' requirement was bonafide and reasonable. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The court also noted that the appellant had not paid the arrears of rent or mesne profits as directed by the trial court.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises, 1989 - Landlords purchased suit premises and sought eviction of tenant for their own occupation - Courts below decreed eviction based on evidence of bonafide need - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs?
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law involved. Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Reasonable requirement
- Eviction of tenant
- Permission under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
- Mesne profits
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 118
Second Appeal No. 585 of 2005
Shri R.L. Khapre for appellant, Shri N.A. Vyawahare for respondents
Shriram S/o. Sitaram Gaikwad and Smt. Shobha W/o. Shriram Gaikwad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeal against concurrent decrees of eviction passed by trial court and first appellate court.
Remedy Sought
Appellant/tenant sought to set aside the decrees of eviction and mesne profits.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the decree of eviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction and ordered payment of Rs.5,647/- plus future mesne profits at Rs.30/- per day. First appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide and reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs are perverse or based on no evidence?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the respondents had other accommodation and the requirement was not bonafide.
Respondents contended that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The bonafide requirement of the landlord is a question of fact.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendant Vijay, who was ordered to be evicted from the suit premises, in pursuance of the decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ramtek and affirmed on appeal by the learned 14th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur, has preferred this Second Appeal.
The plaintiffs had purchased house bearing No.31 C.T.S. 2035, Sheet No.8 of Rakhi Bank Road at Ramtek by registered sale deed on 01.10.1987 from Nalini Joshi and others.
The defendant was a tenant in respect of part of this premises on monthly rent of Rs.125/-.
Since the plaintiffs required the premises bonafide and reasonably for their own occupation and since the provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises, 1989 applied to the suit premises they approached the Rent Controller for permission to issue notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The Rent Controller accorded necessary permission and thereafter the plaintiff sent notice on 28.05.1993 terminating tenancy of the defendant and seeking recovery of the possession on expiry on 30th June, 1993.
Since the tenant did not vacate, the plaintiffs filed suit for defendant's ejectment with damages @ Rs.40/- per day, arrears of rent, notice charges etc.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for eviction in the court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ramtek, which was decreed on an unspecified date. The appellant appealed to the District Court at Nagpur, which was dismissed by the 14th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge on an unspecified date. The appellant then filed the present Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 16.12.2005.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises, 1989:
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 106
