Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil suit filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) against the applicants (original defendants) for possession of suit premises on the ground of bona fide need. The plaintiffs, owners of the premises, claimed that the suit premises were required for the son of plaintiff No.2, Pravin Dhairyasheel Shirole, who was 40 years old, unemployed, and desirous of starting a hotel business. The defendants were tenants running a restaurant and bar in the premises. The Small Causes Court at Pune decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs on 20.01.2006 in Civil Suit No.561/1999, which was confirmed by the lower appellate court on 30.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No.187/2006. The defendants then filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the revision under Section 115 CPC has limited scope and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Need - Section 16 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Eviction decree based on landlord's need for suit premises for his son to start hotel business - Courts below concurrently found need genuine and reasonable - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 3-8).
B) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Scope of interference - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and first appellate court - Held that High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless there is jurisdictional error or perversity (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower courts correctly decreed eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for his son to start a hotel business, and whether the revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bona fide need of landlord
- comparative hardship
- eviction decree
- Section 16 Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Section 115 CPC
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (02) 59
Civil Revision Application No.257 of 2007
Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.G.S.Godbole, i/by Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the Applicants; Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.R.M.Pethe for the Respondents
Chetan Anand Shetty and others
Indrajeet Chandrasen Shirole and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against concurrent decrees of eviction in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (original defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and confirmed by the lower appellate court.
Filing Reason
The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of suit premises on the ground of bona fide need for the son of plaintiff No.2 to start a hotel business.
Previous Decisions
The Small Causes Court at Pune decreed the suit on 20.01.2006 in Civil Suit No.561/1999, which was confirmed by the lower appellate court on 30.11.2006 in Civil Appeal No.187/2006.
Issues
Whether the lower courts correctly decreed eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for his son to start a hotel business.
Whether the revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against concurrent findings of fact.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the lower courts erred in decreeing eviction and that the need was not bona fide.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the revision has limited scope.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court on the issue of bona fide need and comparative hardship cannot be interfered with in revision under Section 115 CPC unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2006 of the Small Causes Court at Pune in Civil Suit No.561/1999.
The Applicants before me are the original Defendants.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Civil Suit No.561/1999 in the Small Causes Court at Pune for possession. The suit was decreed on 20.01.2006. The defendants appealed in Civil Appeal No.187/2006, which was dismissed on 30.11.2006. The defendants then filed Civil Revision Application No.257 of 2007 in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 22.02.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 16
