Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a room admeasuring 8'x10' owned by the respondent-landlord, were in possession since long at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The respondent became owner of the suit property on 21st December 1981 and intimated the petitioners on the same day. Despite intimation, the petitioners failed to pay monthly rent. Consequently, a demand notice dated 20/11/1983 was sent calling upon the petitioners to pay arrears from 1/1/1982. The notice was received on 23/11/1983 (Exh. 19 and 20). The petitioners did not reply or deposit the rent within one month. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession on the ground of default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings under Article 227. The High Court noted that the petitioners admitted receipt of notice but failed to deposit rent within one month. The courts below had concurrently found default, and there was no perversity. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Default - Section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Tenant failed to pay arrears of rent within one month of demand notice - Concurrent findings of default by trial court and appellate court - High Court under Article 227 declined to interfere as findings were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing eviction under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act for non-payment of arrears of rent within one month of demand notice warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings and eviction decree under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Law Points
- Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act
- 1947
- default in payment of rent
- eviction decree
- concurrent findings
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- limited scope of interference
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 203
Writ Petition No.1056 of 1993
Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the petitioners. None for the respondent.
Shri Manchand Sakru Bhandari (since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives: Smt. Birbati, Mr. Shripal Manchand Bhandari, Mr. Haripal Manchand Bhandari, Omkar Manchand Bhandari, Mr. Hansbir Manchand Bhandari, Mr. Vinod Manchand Bhandari)
Mr. Dhanraj Tarachand Pardeshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings of eviction decree for default in payment of rent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners-tenants sought to quash the concurrent findings and decree for recovery of possession passed by the courts below.
Filing Reason
The petitioners-tenants failed to pay arrears of rent despite demand notice, leading to eviction suit decreed on ground of default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of possession; the appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act are perverse or warrant interference under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners-tenants argued that the courts below erred in decreeing eviction.
Respondent-landlord supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the tenant admitted receipt of notice but failed to deposit arrears within one month, constituting default under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners-tenants have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby challenged the concurrent finding given by the Courts below, whereby, the respondents-landlords’ suit for the recovery of possession has been decreed on the ground of default, for non payment of arrears of rent, as contemplated under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents Hotel And Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
The petitioners, admittedly did not deposit the rent within one month from the receipt of the notice.
Procedural History
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession on ground of default. The trial court decreed the suit. The petitioners appealed, which was dismissed. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947: 12(3)(a)
- Constitution of India: 227
