Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the Additional Collector, Amravati, which granted permission to the respondent-landlord (Hindu Child Welfare Association) to issue a quit notice under clauses 13(3)(v), (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller had earlier rejected the landlord's application for permission, finding that no evidence was led to establish the grounds. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal and granted permission without any evidence on record. The High Court noted that the landlord had not led any oral or documentary evidence to support its claims of bona fide need, the tenant having alternate accommodation, or the premises being in dilapidated condition. The court held that the appellate authority's order was unsustainable as it was based on no evidence. However, considering that the landlord sought a remand to lead evidence, the High Court set aside the Additional Collector's order and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to lead evidence. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Permission to Issue Quit Notice - Clauses 13(3)(v), (vi), (vii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Landlord's Burden of Proof - The landlord sought permission to issue quit notice on grounds of bona fide need, alternate accommodation of tenant, and dilapidated condition of premises. The Rent Controller rejected the application for lack of evidence. The Additional Collector reversed the order without any evidence being led by the landlord. Held that the appellate authority cannot grant permission without evidence, and the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration after allowing the landlord to lead evidence. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector was justified in granting permission to the landlord to issue quit notice under clauses 13(3)(v), (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 without any evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated 11.8.1997 and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to lead evidence. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on landlord to establish grounds for eviction
- Permission to issue quit notice cannot be granted without evidence
- Appellate authority must not reverse findings without evidence
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (02) 67
Writ Petition No. 199 of 1998
Mrs. S.K. Keole for the Petitioner, Mr. N.R. Saboo for the Respondents
Omprakash s/o. Vinayakrao Sagar
Hindu Child Welfare Association and 10 Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Collector granting permission to the landlord to issue quit notice to the tenant.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (tenant) sought quashing of the Additional Collector's order granting permission to issue quit notice.
Filing Reason
The Additional Collector allowed the landlord's appeal and granted permission to issue quit notice under clauses 13(3)(v), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order without any evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller rejected the landlord's application for permission to issue quit notice for lack of evidence. The Additional Collector reversed that order and granted permission.
Issues
Whether the Additional Collector was justified in granting permission to issue quit notice without any evidence on record.
Whether the matter should be remanded to allow the landlord to lead evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that permission was granted without any evidence, and there was no evidence to show the landlord's need, the tenant's alternate accommodation, or the dilapidated condition.
Respondent's counsel submitted that no oral evidence was led and requested remand to allow the landlord to lead evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate authority cannot grant permission to issue quit notice under the Rent Control Order without any evidence on record to support the grounds claimed by the landlord. The matter must be remanded for fresh consideration if the landlord seeks an opportunity to lead evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
It becomes clear that the Rent Controller found that the respondent has not lead any evidence to establish that it deserves permission under clauses 13(3)(v)(vi) and (vii) to issue quit notice to the petitioner and therefore, the application was rejected.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is no oral evidence lead by the Trust in support of its case. The learned counsel also submitted that the matter should be remanded back to the Authorities below so that the Land lord can lead documentary evidence on record, as also oral evidence.
Procedural History
The landlord (respondent) filed an application before the Rent Controller for permission to issue quit notice. The Rent Controller rejected the application. The landlord appealed to the Additional Collector, who allowed the appeal and granted permission. The tenant (petitioner) challenged the Additional Collector's order by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: Clauses 13(3)(v), 13(3)(vi), 13(3)(vii)
