Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Chandrabai Dhumal, a tenant, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court which decreed the suit for possession filed by the respondent-landlord, Smt. Avadabai Lokhande. The suit was based on the ground of non-payment of rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Trial Court had decreed the suit, and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The tenant argued that the findings were erroneous and that she had deposited rent regularly. However, the High Court noted that the matter was adjourned as the tenant had not deposited the rent regularly as required under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. The Court observed that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and there was no perversity or error of law apparent on record. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order. The Court emphasized that under Article 227, it cannot act as an appellate court and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Concurrent Findings - The petitioner-tenant challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court decreeing eviction for non-payment of rent. The High Court held that under Article 227, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perverse finding or error of law apparent on record. The tenant failed to deposit rent regularly as required under Section 12(3)(b) and the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. (Paras 1-3)
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 courts below in a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below and the decree for eviction.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Eviction for non-payment of rent
- Section 12(3)(b) Bombay Rent Act
- Regular deposit of rent
- Tenant's default
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 199
Writ Petition No.672 of 1991
Mr. S.S. Swadi i/b S.G. Deshmukh for the petitioner
Smt. Avadabai Namdeo Lokhande
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 of fact in a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-tenant sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent-landlord.
Filing Reason
The tenant was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing eviction for non-payment of rent.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession; the Appellate Court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in an eviction suit based on non-payment of rent.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner-tenant argued that the concurrent findings were erroneous and that she had deposited rent regularly.
The respondent-landlord supported the concurrent findings.
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 based on no evidence. The tenant failed to deposit rent regularly as required under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, and the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner-tenant, seeks to challenge the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Courts below, whereby, the respondent-landlord’s suit for possession has been decreed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.
The matter was adjourned as the tenant had not deposited the rent regularly as required under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.
Procedural History
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for possession against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The tenant appealed, and the Appellate Court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 12(3)(b)
