Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s Mahavir Tea Company and its partners, were tenants of a premises owned by the respondent-landlord, Kanhaiyalal Fettelalji Upadhyaya (since deceased, represented by legal heirs). The landlord filed proceedings on 16.6.1988 under Clause 13(3)(iv), (v), and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, seeking permission to terminate the tenancy. The landlord contended that he occupied only about 550 sq. ft. on the mezzanine floor of the suit structure with his family of 12 members, which was insufficient, and he needed the first floor area of about 950 sq. ft. (rented to the petitioners) for his own occupation. He also alleged that the tenants had changed the user of the premises from a shop to storage. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority (Additional Collector, Nagpur) concurrently granted permission under Clause 13(3)(iv) (change of user) and Clause 13(3)(vi) (bonafide need), but rejected the ground under Clause 13(3)(v). The petitioners challenged these concurrent orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, noted that the authorities had considered the evidence and recorded findings of fact. The court held that the bonafide need of the landlord for additional accommodation for his large family was established, and the change of user was also proved. The court reiterated that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 with concurrent findings of fact is limited to cases where the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Finding no such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders granting permission to terminate the tenancy.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Clause 13(3)(vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Landlord's bonafide need for additional accommodation for his family of 12 members occupying only 550 sq. ft. - Authorities concurrently found need genuine - High Court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 as findings were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-4).
B) Rent Control - Change of User - Clause 13(3)(iv) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Tenant using premises for storage instead of shop - Change of user established - Permission granted by authorities - High Court upheld concurrent findings (Paras 1-4).
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - High Court will not re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Petition dismissed (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent orders granting permission to terminate tenancy under Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, on grounds of change of user and bonafide need, are sustainable in law and warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders granting permission to terminate the tenancy under Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Change of user
- Concurrent findings
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (02) 77
Writ Petition No.2574/2001
Shri S.V. Purohit for petitioners, Smt. Anuradha Taiwade (A.G.P.) for respondent no.1, Shri S.C. Mehadia for respondent no.2
M/s Mahavir Tea Company and others
The Additional Collector, Nagpur and Kanhaiyalal Fettelalji Upadhyaya (deceased through LRs)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders granting permission to terminate tenancy under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders granting permission to the landlord to terminate their tenancy.
Filing Reason
The landlord sought eviction on grounds of bonafide need and change of user; the petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and appellate authority.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller and the Additional Collector (appellate authority) concurrently granted permission under Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order, but rejected the ground under Clause 13(3)(v).
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide need and change of user are perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the findings of the authorities were erroneous and required re-appreciation.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings as based on evidence and not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 with concurrent findings of fact is limited to cases where the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the authorities had considered the evidence and recorded findings that the landlord's bonafide need for additional accommodation for his family of 12 members was genuine, and the tenant had changed the user of the premises. These findings were not shown to be perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the concurrent orders passed by the authorities under C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises And Rent Control Order 1949, granting permission to present respondent no.2 (through legal heirs) to terminate their tenancy under Clause 13 (3) (iv) (v) and (vi) of said Order.
The respondent-landlord filed proceedings under Clause 13 (3) (iv) (v) and (vi) of Rent Control Order on 16.6.1988 against the present petitioners and stated that he is occupying about 550 sq. feet of house at mezzanine floor in the suit structure and his family consists of 12 members.
He contended that said area is very small and therefore he needed the area on first floor i.e. about 950 sq. feet given on rent to present petitioners for his own occupation.
Procedural History
The landlord filed proceedings on 16.6.1988 under Clause 13(3)(iv), (v), and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller granted permission under Clause 13(3)(iv) and (vi) but rejected (v). The petitioners appealed to the Additional Collector, Nagpur, who upheld the order. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(iv), Clause 13(3)(vi)
