Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a suit premises, challenged the concurrent decrees of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The landlords had filed Suit No.2244 of 1965 seeking eviction on grounds of bona fide need, change of user, and acquisition of suitable accommodation by the tenants. The trial court, after considering evidence including testimony of the landlords' rent collector and the tenant himself, decreed the suit on all three grounds, holding that the landlords' need was reasonable and bona fide, that the tenants had changed the user of the premises, and that they had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The appellate court in Appeal No.286 of 1971 confirmed these findings. The tenants then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, per Justice Anoop V. Mohta, dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse or unreasonable. The court emphasized that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the findings are shown to be perverse. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Need - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlords sought eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for their own occupation. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the landlords' need was genuine and that greater hardship would be caused to them if the decree was not granted. The High Court refused to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact, holding that they were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-4) B) Rent Control - Change of User - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The trial court held that the tenants were using the suit premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out. This finding was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court upheld the finding as it was supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse. (Paras 2-3) C) Rent Control - Acquisition of Suitable Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlords alleged that the tenants had acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The courts below accepted this ground and decreed eviction. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that the concurrent findings were based on material on record. (Paras 2-3) D) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court reiterated that in a writ petition under Article 227, it cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the courts below unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse, the petition was dismissed. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and appellate court on grounds of bona fide need, change of user, and acquisition of suitable accommodation under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 are perverse or unreasonable, warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent decrees of eviction.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Perversity
- Bona fide need
- Change of user
- Acquisition of suitable accommodation
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
