Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Ratnabai Krishna Chorge, filed an application under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) before the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Bombay, being Case No.22 of 2002. She claimed to be the owner and landlady of a structure known as Chorge House at Trombay, Koliwada, Bombay. In October 1990, she allowed respondent No.1, her nephew, to use and occupy one room admeasuring 18' x 15' at the rear side of the said house on a monthly compensation of Rs.125/-. No written agreement was executed due to their relationship. The petitioner sought possession of the premises on the ground that she bona fide required the same for her own use and occupation. The Competent Authority dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that she required the premises for her own use and that she had not issued a notice under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a civil revision application under Section 13A(2) of the Act. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Competent Authority's findings were perverse and not based on the material on record. The court noted that the petitioner had clearly stated her need for the premises for her own residence and that the tenant had not paid rent regularly. The court also held that the requirement of notice under Section 12 did not apply as the premises were not let for residence but were allowed to be used as a licensee. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Competent Authority, and restored the application for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13A(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's application for possession on ground of bona fide requirement - Competent Authority dismissed application holding that landlord failed to prove that she required the premises for her own use and that no notice under Section 12 was given - High Court in revision held that the Competent Authority's findings were perverse and not based on evidence; the landlord's need was bona fide and the tenant was not entitled to protection under Section 12 as the premises were not let for residence - Revision allowed, application restored (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act can dismiss an application for possession on the ground that the landlord had not issued a notice under Section 12 of the Act, and whether the Competent Authority's order was perverse and liable to be set aside in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the order of the Competent Authority dated 18th January 2005, and restored the application (Case No.22 of 2002) to the file of the Competent Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Section 13A(2) Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Competent Authority's jurisdiction
- Revision under Section 13A(2) is not appeal
- No requirement of notice under Section 12
