Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below which allowed the respondent-landlord's suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The landlord had proved his bonafide need for the premises for his 21 family members. The tenant argued that pending the suit, the landlord had obtained possession of the premises through a separate writ petition and had subsequently let out the premises for non-residential purposes, which should have been considered by the appellate court. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bonafide need were based on evidence and could not be interfered with under Article 227. The court further held that the landlord, as owner, is entitled to use the premises for any purpose after obtaining possession, and the tenant cannot restrict the landlord's use. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a grave error or perversity. The bonafide need of the landlord for 21 family members was duly proved and cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3)
B) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Landlord's Right to Use Premises - After obtaining possession on the ground of bonafide need, the landlord is entitled to use the premises for any purpose, including non-residential use, and cannot be restricted by the tenant. The need and desire of the landlord cannot be directed or restricted by the tenant. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bonafide need of the landlord for eviction of the tenant.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- concurrent findings of fact
- bonafide need of landlord
- tenant's right to challenge eviction
- landlord's right to use premises after possession
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 169
Writ Petition No. 4911 of 1992
Mr. R. M. Pethe i/b Mr. R.G. Ketkar for the petitioner. None for the respondent.
Shri Shivdayal Biharilal Gupta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent findings of fact in a suit for recovery of possession.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below allowing the landlord's suit for possession.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the eviction decree on the ground that the landlord had obtained possession pending suit and later let out the premises for non-residential purpose.
Previous Decisions
The suit for recovery of possession was allowed by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The landlord had also obtained possession in a separate writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2767/1987) dated 20th June, 1989.
Issues
Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bonafide need.
Whether the landlord's subsequent letting out of the premises after obtaining possession affects the eviction decree.
Submissions/Arguments
The tenant argued that the appellate court failed to consider that after obtaining possession, the landlord let out the premises for non-residential purpose, which should have been taken into account.
The landlord contended that the bonafide need was proved and the concurrent findings should not be disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a grave error or perversity. The landlord's bonafide need for 21 family members was duly proved. After obtaining possession, the landlord is entitled to use the premises for any purpose, and the tenant cannot restrict such use.
Judgment Excerpts
The bonafide need of the respondent-landlord for the premises in question have been duly proved, apart from the material and the evidence led by the parties.
Being the owner of the premises, they are entitled to use the said premises for the purpose of their personal use and occupation.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession which was allowed by the trial court. The tenant appealed, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The tenant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227. Pending the suit, the landlord had obtained possession through a separate writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2767/1987) dated 20th June, 1989.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
