Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged an appellate eviction decree passed on the ground of rent default. The case arose from a suit for possession filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenants before the trial court. The trial court dismissed the suit on all grounds, including default, unauthorized structure, bonafide need, and nuisance, by its judgment dated 29 November 1986. The landlords appealed to the District Court, Pune. The lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal, granting a decree for eviction solely on the ground of default, while the other grounds were not pressed. The appellate court reasoned that even after adjusting an excess deposit of Rs. 45.80 from earlier proceedings, a balance of Rs. 2.20 remained unpaid, indicating that the tenant was not in receipt of the full rent for six months from the date of demand notice. The tenants filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the appellate order. At the final hearing, counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn due to lack of instructions, but the court proceeded in the interest of justice. The High Court examined the appellate court's reasoning and noted that the petitioner-tenants had replied to the demand notice and had an application for fixation of standard rent pending even before the demand notice was issued. The tenants had been depositing rent in court, and against the demand period, they had deposited Rs. 927, which was in excess. The Court observed that the appellate court's own finding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent for more than six months was contradicted by its decree based on a shortfall of Rs. 2.20. The High Court held that such a trivial sum could not justify eviction, especially when a standard rent dispute was pending and the tenant had demonstrated willingness to pay by depositing rent in court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment dated 6 April 1990 and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The writ petition was allowed with rule made absolute, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction on Ground of Default - Default requiring six months' arrear not proved - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Sections not specified in judgment) - The appellate court granted eviction due to a shortfall of Rs. 2.20 after adjusting excess deposit. The High Court set aside the decree, noting the tenant had a pending standard rent fixation application and had deposited rent in excess, thus no default under the Act. Held: Eviction on ground of default is not justified where arrears are trivial and tenant had sought standard rent determination. (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in granting a decree of possession on the ground of default when the tenant was not in arrears of rent for more than six months, had a pending application for fixation of standard rent, and had deposited rent in excess?
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. Impugned judgment dated 6/4/1990 set aside; trial court's judgment dated 29/11/1986 restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- eviction on ground of default requires arrears of rent for at least six months
- minor shortfall of rent after adjusting excess deposit does not constitute default
- pending application for fixation of standard rent negates willful default
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts
