Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vamanrao Vishwanath Falke, was the landlord of premises consisting of two rooms admeasuring 10' x 12' situated at House No.331, Peth Parvati Sahakar No.1. He filed a suit for recovery of possession against the respondents, who were the legal heirs of the original tenant (the father of respondents 2 to 4 and husband of respondent 1). The original tenant died in 1977, and the respondents continued in occupation. The landlord alleged that the respondents were in arrears of rent, had caused nuisance, and had acquired alternate accommodation at Dashbhuja Ganpati. A notice was served on 13/8/1980, and the suit was filed. The respondents resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The trial court (II Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune) decreed the suit on 11/7/1986 in R.C.S. No.20/1981 r/w M.A.No.771/1980. The respondents appealed to the Additional District Judge, Pune, who allowed the appeal on 4/2/1992, setting aside the trial court's decree and dismissing the suit. The landlord then filed the present writ petition challenging the appellate order. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court had correctly held that the landlord failed to prove that the respondents had acquired suitable alternate accommodation. The High Court noted that the appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Alternate Accommodation - Burden of Proof - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant's legal heirs had acquired alternate accommodation at Dashbhuja Ganpati. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the landlord failed to prove that the alternate accommodation was suitable and acquired by the respondents. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, emphasizing that the burden lies on the landlord to establish acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation. (Paras 1-3) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent Findings - The High Court declined to interfere with the appellate court's findings of fact, noting that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no perversity was shown. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents (tenant's legal heirs) had acquired suitable alternate accommodation so as to entitle the landlord to eviction under the relevant rent control law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Pune dated 4/2/1992 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Acquisition of alternate accommodation
- Eviction suit
- Rent control legislation
- Landlord-tenant law
