Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by the landlord, Mohammad Musa Ibrahimsaheb Ghante, challenging the judgment and order of the Principal District Judge, Latur, in Rent Appeal No.10/2005 dated 20th April 2012, which reversed the trial court's decree of eviction. The landlord had sought eviction of the tenant, M/s Gajanan Prabhuappa Bidwe, on two grounds: first, that the existing premises for his business were insufficient and the suit premises were required for the bonafide need of his third son to start a new business; second, that the tenant had illegally inducted the respondent as a sub-tenant without the landlord's consent. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court reversed it. The High Court, in revision, examined the appellate court's findings and found them to be perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted that the appellate court had erroneously referred to the respondent as a 'tenant' in the body of the judgment, which gave a wrong signal. The High Court held that the bonafide need of the landlord was established and that the appellate court's interference was unwarranted. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree of eviction was restored. The court directed the tenant to vacate the suit premises within three months.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord sought eviction on ground that existing business premises were insufficient and suit premises required for his third son's new business - Appellate court reversed trial court's decree - Held that the appellate court failed to appreciate evidence and the bonafide need of the landlord, and its findings were perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 4-6).
B) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 16(1)(e) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord alleged that tenant illegally inducted respondent as sub-tenant - Appellate court erroneously referred to respondent as 'tenant' - Held that the appellate court's finding on subletting was not based on proper appreciation of evidence and was liable to be interfered with (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree of eviction on grounds of bonafide need and subletting.
Final Decision
Revision application allowed. The judgment and order of the Principal District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No.10/2005 dated 20th April 2012 is set aside. The decree of eviction passed by the trial court is restored. The tenant is directed to vacate the suit premises within three months.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- subletting without consent
- eviction under rent control laws
- revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 29
Civil Revision Application No.195 of 2012
Shri P.R. Patil, Advocate h/f Shri P.G. Gunale, Advocate for applicant; Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for Respondent
Mohammad Musa Ibrahimsaheb Ghante
M/s Gajanan Prabhuappa Bidwe, through its Partner, Prabhuappa Nagappa Bidwe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against appellate court's judgment reversing eviction decree in rent control matter.
Remedy Sought
Landlord sought eviction of tenant on grounds of bonafide need and illegal subletting.
Filing Reason
Landlord's existing business premises were insufficient and suit premises were required for his third son's new business; tenant had illegally inducted respondent as sub-tenant.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed eviction; appellate court reversed the decree.
Issues
Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need?
Whether the appellate court's finding on subletting was perverse?
Submissions/Arguments
Landlord argued that the appellate court failed to appreciate evidence and its findings were perverse.
Tenant argued that the appellate court correctly reversed the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's findings were perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence; the bonafide need of the landlord was established and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree.
Judgment Excerpts
Upon perusal of the proceedings initiated before the Rent Controller, it appears that principally those proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated firstly, on the ground that the existing premises for the business are not sufficient and, therefore, the suit premises are required for bonafide need of the applicant - landlord, and also the same are required to start new business of his third son.
Another ground on which eviction was sought is that the present respondent i.e. tenant has been illegally inducted as sub tenant in the suit shop by the original tenant Mr.Samb Madhavrao Patil and respondent is in illegal possession of the suit shop but, on account of referring the word 'tenant' in respect of respondent in the body of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court, it gives a wrong signal that the respondent is tenant of the suit shop.
Procedural History
Landlord filed eviction proceedings before Rent Controller. Trial court decreed eviction. Tenant appealed to Principal District Judge, Latur, who reversed the decree. Landlord filed Civil Revision Application No.195 of 2012 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The High Court allowed the revision and restored the trial court's decree.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(g), Section 16(1)(e)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
