Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the eviction decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of the landlord's suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. The landlord had purchased the suit house consisting of four tenements and sought eviction of all tenants for his own residential requirement. The trial court dismissed the suit on 22nd March 1984, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed eviction. The tenant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the petition was not a first appeal and the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to examining perversity or jurisdictional error. The court found that the appellate court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The tenant's contention that he had purchased the suit house was not sufficient to defeat the landlord's bonafide need. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Need - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 13(1)(g) - Landlord sought eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide need for residential purpose - Trial court dismissed suit but appellate court decreed eviction - High Court in writ petition held that findings of appellate court were based on evidence and not perverse - No interference warranted - Held that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised as appellate court and concurrent findings of fact cannot be lightly disturbed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction decree passed by the appellate court on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord is sustainable in law and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Eviction decree passed by Additional District Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi upheld.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Eviction of tenant
- Writ jurisdiction limited to perversity or jurisdictional error
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with
