Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant, was a monthly tenant of the suit premises, a flat in Mumbai, at a monthly rent of Rs. 450. The respondent, original plaintiff, was a retired settlement officer from Rajasthan. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947, claiming that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own residence and for his family members. The plaintiff had given a notice dated 3rd May 1979 demanding possession and terminated the tenancy by notice dated 24th May 1979. The defendant replied raising false contentions. The plaintiff made correspondence explaining his difficulties but the defendant did not hand over possession. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. The defendant then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the plaintiff's requirement was bonafide and reasonable. The High Court noted that the plaintiff had retired and needed the flat for his residence. The defendant's contention that the plaintiff had other accommodation was not accepted. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction of Tenant - The landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession of a flat on the ground that he required it reasonably and bonafide for his own residence and his family members after his retirement. The tenant contested the suit. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the findings of the courts below that the landlord's requirement was bonafide and reasonable, and dismissed the tenant's writ petition. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord's requirement of the suit premises for his own residence and his family members is reasonable and bonafide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- Reasonable requirement
- Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Eviction of tenant
- Residential premises
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (10) 96
Writ Petition No. 5217 of 1994
Mr. Dani h/f A.K. Abhyankar for petitioner, Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar for respondent
Hari Kumar Sharma alias H.K. Sharma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent findings in a rent control eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (original defendant/tenant) sought to quash the eviction decree passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The tenant filed the writ petition against the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of landlord's bonafide requirement.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for eviction. The appeal against that decree was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the landlord's requirement of the suit premises for his own residence and his family members is reasonable and bonafide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner (tenant) argued that the landlord's requirement was not bonafide and that the landlord had other accommodation.
The respondent (landlord) contended that he required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his own residence and his family members after his retirement.
Ratio Decidendi
The landlord's requirement for the suit premises for his own residence and his family members is reasonable and bonafide under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947, and the concurrent findings of the courts below on this issue are not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery of possession of the premises i.e. Flat No. 25 situated on 4th floor of Vishwa Mahal, Plot No. 51, Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay 400 020 on the ground that the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for his residential purpose and for his family members.
The suit was filed under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed R.A.E. Suit No. 755/2609 of 1983 for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed, and the appeal was dismissed. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Housing Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(g)
