Case Note & Summary
This revision petition arose from an eviction dispute concerning a tenanted room in a building owned by the Shripant Bhavan Charity Trust, the respondents. The original tenant, Dr. Manek Mistry, had been using the premises as a consulting room since prior to his death on 15 November 1980. He was survived by his widow, Mehroo, a lawyer, and two minor daughters. After his death, the widow continued to occupy the premises but changed its use to her law office. The tenancy was inherited by the legal heirs under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, as they had been residing with the deceased. Mehroo died on 26 March 1993, and thereafter one of the daughters, Parizad (the petitioner), claimed tenancy rights. The landlord-trust filed R.A.E. Suit No. 924 of 1990 seeking eviction on the ground that the change of user from a doctor's clinic to a lawyer's office was unauthorized and contrary to the terms of the tenancy. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but on appeal (Appeal No. 737 of 2001), the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court accepted the landlord's contention and passed a decree of eviction dated 18 February 2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Bombay High Court. The core legal issue was whether the change of user constituted a valid ground for eviction under the rent control legislation. The petitioner argued that the tenancy had validly devolved and that the use as an office did not alter the essential character of the tenancy. The respondents maintained that the premises were let specifically for a doctor's consulting room and that its conversion to a commercial lawyer's office was a material deviation. The High Court, after examining the record, held that the original tenancy was for residential-cum-professional purposes and that using the premises as a full-time lawyer's office amounted to a substantial change of user. The court noted that the change was not a minor variation but a fundamental alteration of the purpose for which the premises were let. Consequently, the landlord was entitled to eviction. The court further emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to oversight for jurisdictional errors or material irregularity and does not permit reappraisal of evidence. Finding no perversity in the appellate court's factual determination, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction decree, thereby affirming that the change of user was a valid and sufficient ground for eviction.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Inheritance of Tenancy - Under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, legal heirs who were residing with the tenant at the time of his death are entitled to succeed to the tenancy. The widow and daughters of the deceased doctor were residing with him, thus the tenancy devolved upon them. (Paras 3-4) B) Tenancy Law - Change of User - Under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, a change in the use of rented premises from a professional consulting room to a commercial lawyer's office by a legal heir, without landlord's consent, constitutes a ground for eviction. The original tenancy was for residential-cum-professional use, and the widow's use as a lawyer's office was a material change, entitling the landlord to eviction. Held, the change of user is a valid ground for eviction. (Paras 5-8) C) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court's revisional power is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence. No perversity or jurisdictional error was found in the concurrent findings of fact; petition dismissed. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the change of user of the tenanted premises from a doctor's consulting room to a lawyer's office by the legal heir after the death of the original tenant constitutes a valid ground for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the appellate court's decree of eviction was perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the eviction decree. The Court held that the change of user from a doctor's consulting room to a lawyer's office was a material change and a valid ground for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The revisional power under Section 115 CPC did not permit interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Law Points
- Under Section 5(11)(c) of Bombay Rent Act
- legal heirs residing with tenant at time of death succeed to tenancy
- Change of user from professional to commercial use is a valid ground for eviction
- High Court's revisional power under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors.
