Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord, who became owner of House No. 447B, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune, by virtue of a will dated 9 May 1979. The petitioner-tenant occupied the suit premises but failed to pay rent regularly. The landlord issued a demand notice dated 14 January 1986 claiming arrears from 1979. The tenant replied but neither deposited the arrears nor filed an application for fixation of standard rent within one month. The suit for eviction was filed on 3 March 1986 on the ground of default. The trial court, after considering evidence, decreed possession on 25 November 1988, holding the tenant a defaulter. The appellate court confirmed the decree on 13 September 1991. The tenant then invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The tenant argued that no valid attornment notice was given, that the suit was filed prematurely, and that there was no arrears as the ownership of the premises was disputed. The landlord, relying on Supreme Court decisions, contended that the tenant had admitted the change of ownership in cross-examination by stating that rent was paid to the plaintiff, and that non-compliance with the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act mandated eviction. The High Court, per Justice Anoop V. Mohta, after hearing both sides, held that the tenant had failed to raise any dispute about the quantum of rent or to deposit rent within one month of the demand notice, as required under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The court noted that the tenant's belated miscellaneous application could not cure the default. The defence of want of attornment was rejected because the tenant's own deposition showed knowledge of the landlord's ownership. The court relied on Ibrahim Abdulrahim Shaikh v. Krishnamorari Sripatlal Agarwal and Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v. Jamnadas C. Tuliani to underscore the mandatory nature of timely compliance. There being no perversity in the concurrent findings, the writ petition was dismissed. However, considering the circumstances, the court granted the tenant six months’ time to vacate, provided an undertaking is filed within four weeks, failing which the landlord could proceed with execution.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Default - Requirement of Timely Dispute of Rent - Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, Sections 11, 12, 13 - The tenant must raise a dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases within one month from the receipt of the demand notice and file an application under Section 11(3) expeditiously; mere filing of an application after one month does not demonstrate bona fide intention and results in eviction. Held that eviction decree was proper as tenant failed to deposit rent or dispute it within the statutory period (Paras 2, 7-9). B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference with Concurrent Findings - Where the trial court and appellate court have concurrently found the tenant to be a defaulter based on evidence, the High Court under Article 227 will not re-appreciate evidence or interfere unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Held that there was no perversity in the concurrent findings, and the petition was dismissed (Paras 1, 3, 8-9). C) Rent Control - Attornment and Ownership - Burden on Landlord - The burden lies on the subsequent landlord to prove that the tenant was informed of the change of ownership; however, the tenant's own admission in cross-examination that rent was paid to the new landlord is sufficient to establish knowledge of ownership and liability to pay rent. Held that the defence of lack of attornment notice lost its strength (Paras 4, 8). D) Practice and Procedure - Writ Petition - Dismissal with Time to Vacate - While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted six months’ time to vacate the suit premises subject to filing a usual undertaking by the tenant and all occupants within four weeks; on failure, the landlord is at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment justified interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, and whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent or dispute the standard rent within one month of demand notice warranted eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The decree for possession was confirmed. However, six months’ time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises, subject to filing a usual undertaking on behalf of herself and all occupants within four weeks, failing which the landlord is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- tenant must dispute standard rent or permitted increases within one month of demand notice
- failure to deposit rent attracts eviction under Bombay Rent Act
- limited interference under Article 227 with concurrent findings of fact
- knowledge of ownership can be inferred from tenant's conduct
- attornment notice not mandatory if tenant admits ownership
- eviction decree must follow non-compliance with Sections 11
- 12
- 13 of Bombay Rent Act
