Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a landlord, filed a suit for possession against the respondent-tenant on grounds of bonafide need and arrears of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal. The landlord then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, seeking interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found no perversity or lack of jurisdiction in the findings of the courts below. The court held that under Article 227, it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the lower courts unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings that the landlord failed to prove bonafide need and arrears of rent.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Eviction - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's suit for possession on ground of bonafide need and arrears of rent was dismissed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court - High Court under Article 227 declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing the landlord's suit for possession on grounds of bonafide need and arrears of rent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- Bonafide need
- Arrears of rent
- Rent control legislation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 192
Writ Petition No. 4880 of 1990
Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the appellant, Mr. A.V. Anturkar for the respondent
Sou. Suman @ Usha Dattatraya Mudaliyar
Dinkarrao Anandrao Bobade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent findings in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-landlord sought interference with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissing the suit for possession.
Filing Reason
The landlord's suit for possession on grounds of bonafide need and arrears of rent was dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court dismissed the suit for possession; the Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal.
Issues
Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a rent control suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-landlord argued for interference with concurrent findings.
Respondent-tenant opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. The court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, whereby, suit for possession on the ground of bonafide need and arrears of rent was dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for possession in the Trial Court, which was dismissed. The landlord appealed to the Appellate Court, which confirmed the dismissal. The landlord then filed a writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947:
