Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a premises in Pune, challenged the judgment and order dated 7th February 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The landlord had sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence of his family members. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the findings of fact by the authorities below were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the landlord had no other reasonably suitable accommodation, while the tenant had alternative accommodation. The court also observed that the comparative hardship was in favour of the landlord. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide need for residence of his family members - Rent Controller allowed eviction - Appellate authority confirmed - High Court in writ petition held that findings of fact by authorities below were based on evidence and not perverse - No interference under Article 227 - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction (Paras 4-6). B) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord had no other reasonably suitable accommodation - Tenant had alternative accommodation - Rent Controller held that hardship would be greater to landlord if eviction refused - High Court upheld finding - Held that comparative hardship is a question of fact and concurrent findings are binding (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller's finding of bona fide need of the landlord for the suit premises and the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord was perverse or suffered from any error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Comparative hardship
- Reasonable and suitable accommodation
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India
