Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Subhadrabai Shankar Raut, Shri Vinayak Shankar Raut, Shri Prakash Shankar Raut, and Shri Vilas Shankar Raut, were tenants of a premises owned by the respondent, Shri Manohar Baliram Bhavsar. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate court. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. It noted that the trial court and appellate court had both found that the tenants had defaulted in paying rent and had sublet the premises to a third party without the landlord's consent. The High Court held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the findings were supported by evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree. The court also noted that the petitioners had not paid rent for a long period and had sublet the premises, which were valid grounds for eviction under the Act.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The petitioners-tenants challenged the eviction decree on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting - The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the tenants had defaulted in paying rent and had sublet the premises without consent - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the findings were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-5). B) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord alleged that the tenants had sublet the premises to a third party - The courts below found that the tenants had parted with possession and the third party was in exclusive possession - The High Court upheld the finding of subletting as it was a question of fact and not perverse (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court regarding default in payment of rent and subletting under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Law Points
- Rent control
- Eviction decree
- Default in payment of rent
- Subletting
- Concurrent findings
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 115 CPC
- Section 13 of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
