Case Note & Summary
The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners, who were the original tenants, challenging the judgment and order dated 26th July 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pandharpur (Appellate Court). The respondent, Dattatraya Hari Asalekar, was the original landlord who had filed a suit for eviction against the tenants under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act). The landlord sought eviction on two grounds: first, that the tenant had sublet the premises without his consent (Section 13(1)(e) of the Act), and second, that the tenant had not used the premises for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause (Section 13(1)(a) of the Act). The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the landlord failed to prove the grounds. The landlord appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, decreeing eviction on both grounds. The tenants then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the evidence and found that the appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that the tenant had failed to prove that the alleged subtenant was a family member or that the subletting was with the landlord's consent. Additionally, the tenant had shifted to another place and the premises were used by a third party, establishing non-user. The High Court held that the appellate court's judgment was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises without consent. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed eviction. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding, noting that the tenant failed to prove that the alleged subtenant was a family member or that the subletting was with consent. Held that subletting without consent is a valid ground for eviction (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-user - Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord also sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had not used the premises for six months without reasonable cause. The appellate court found that the tenant had shifted to another place and the premises were used by a third party. The High Court affirmed that non-user was established. Held that non-user for six months without reasonable cause is a ground for eviction (Paras 1-10). C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 227, declined to interfere with the appellate court's findings, as they were based on evidence and not perverse. Held that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate evidence (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's finding and decreeing eviction on grounds of subletting and non-user under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's judgment decreeing eviction on grounds of subletting and non-user.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Non-user of premises for six months without reasonable cause is a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act
- Appellate court's reversal of trial court's finding on subletting and non-user is justified based on evidence
- High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not to re-appreciate evidence unless perverse
