Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original landlords, owned a house admeasuring 10 x 12 feet situated on the ground floor of House No. 346, Budhwar Peth, Pune-2, which was used as a garage by the respondent-tenant. The landlords filed a suit for possession before the Small Causes Court, Pune, on the ground that the tenant had closed the premises for more than six months without any reasons, which is a ground for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court, after considering the material and evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit. The appellate court confirmed this dismissal by its order dated 30/3/1991. Aggrieved, the landlords filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both parties and examined the reasoning of the courts below. The court noted that the suit premises was a garage on the ground floor and the tenant had been using it as such. The landlords' requirement to use the premises for residential purposes was held not reasonable by the courts below. The High Court observed that under Article 227, it is difficult to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or illegal. After going through the record, the court found nothing perverse or illegal in the findings. The court also noted that the tenant had reasonable cause for closure of the premises, as the tenant had shifted his business elsewhere due to the small size of the garage and the landlords' own conduct. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, maintaining and confirming the orders of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Closure of Premises - Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction on ground that tenant closed the garage for more than six months without reasonable cause - Both courts below concurrently held that the tenant had reasonable cause for closure - High Court under Article 227 declined to interfere as findings were not perverse or illegal - Held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence (Paras 2-4).
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 that the tenant did not close the suit premises without reasonable cause for more than six months.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining and confirming the orders of the courts below. The concurrent findings of fact were upheld as not perverse or illegal.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Section 13(1)(k)
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- scope of supervisory jurisdiction
