Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by tenants challenging a decree for possession passed in favor of the landlords. The respondent-landlady (since deceased, represented by legal heirs) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1984 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune, seeking possession of a premises measuring 16' x 10' on the ground floor of building No. 1940 on Saldhana Street, Pune. The suit was filed against the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4366/1992 (original defendants 2 and 3) and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4476/1992 (original defendant No. 1). The trial court, after considering pleadings and evidence, held that the landlords proved their bonafide and reasonable need for the premises and also proved greater hardship. Consequently, a decree for possession was granted. The original defendants 2 and 3 appealed (Civil Appeal No. 585/1988), but the appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree on the same grounds. The original defendant No. 1 was a respondent in that appeal. The tenants then filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court heard the parties and found that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. The court held that there was no ground to interfere with the findings of bonafide need and greater hardship. Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's bonafide and reasonable need for premises - Trial court and appellate court concurrently held that the landlords proved their bonafide need and greater hardship - Writ court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact - Held that no error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court regarding the landlord's bonafide need and greater hardship can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Greater hardship
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 166
Writ Petition No. 4366 of 1992 with Writ Petition No. 4476 of 1992
Mr. R.K. Maniyar i/b Mr. M.L. Patil for the petitioners in WP 4366/1992; Mr. G.M. Khambete for respondent No.2 in WP 4366/1992 and for the petitioner in WP 4476/1992
Mohamad Suleman Jumai (since deceased by his heirs) and others in WP 4366/1992; Mohammed Shaffi Usman in WP 4476/1992
Gatimabai Shaikh Amiruddin (since deceased by her heirs) and others in WP 4366/1992; Fatmabai Shaikh Aminuddin (since deceased by her heirs) and others in WP 4476/1992
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging eviction decree in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
Tenants sought to set aside the decree for possession passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
Tenants challenged the concurrent findings of bonafide need and greater hardship in eviction proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed possession in Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1984; appellate court confirmed in Civil Appeal No. 585/1988.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide need and greater hardship can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of bonafide need and greater hardship were erroneous.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued no interference warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on bonafide need and greater hardship, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution unless there is an error of law or jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court, after considering the pleading, as well as, evidence led by the parties, held that the landlords proved their bonafide and reasonable need and also proved greater hardship.
The appeal preferred by the original defendants 2 and 3... got confirmed the judgment and decree for possession on the same ground and foundation.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1984 filed by landlords in Court of Small Causes, Pune, decreed possession. Appeal No. 585/1988 by defendants 2 and 3 dismissed. Tenants filed writ petitions under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(g)
