Bombay High Court Allows Landlord's Petition in Eviction Case Based on Bonafide Need Under C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 — Reversing Appellate Court's Dismissal of Suit.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 222
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda, aged about 83 years, is the owner of a house at Teen Nal square, Nagpur, which includes a shop block of about 500 square feet let out to two brothers, Assumal and Lalumal, for running a hotel. In 1988, the landlord sought eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949. Lalumal died in 1981, and his widow Shantidevi was joined as a party. Assumal died during the proceedings, and his legal heirs, including his son Satish, were added. The Rent Controller granted permission to sue on 13/4/2001, after which the landlord issued a quit notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, determining tenancy by 31st July, 2001. The notice was served on some respondents but returned as 'not claimed' for others. The respondents filed a common written statement. The Trial Court decreed eviction, but the Appellate Court reversed and dismissed the suit. The landlord challenged this under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court found that the Appellate Court's decision was perverse and not based on evidence, and restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Eviction - Clause 13(3)(vi) C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 - Landlord's bonafide need for commercial premises - Trial Court decreed eviction but Appellate Court reversed - High Court under Article 227 held that the Appellate Court's finding was perverse and not based on evidence - Held that the landlord's need was bonafide and the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction.

Law Points

  • Bonafide need of landlord
  • Eviction decree
  • Rent control
  • Section 106 Transfer of Property Act
  • Clause 13(3)(vi) C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order
  • 1949
  • Article 227 Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 124

Writ Petition No. 294/2006

2006-11-06

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

Mr. M.B. Naidu for Petitioner, Mr. S.V. Purohit for Respondent Nos.1 & 2

Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda

Smt. Suribai Assumal Moolchandani and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging appellate court's reversal of eviction decree.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner/landlord sought restoration of Trial Court's eviction decree against respondents/tenants.

Filing Reason

Appellate Court set aside Trial Court's eviction decree and dismissed the suit for eviction on ground of bonafide need.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed eviction; Appellate Court reversed and dismissed suit.

Issues

Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree of eviction on the ground of bonafide need.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Appellate Court's finding was perverse and not based on evidence. Respondents supported the Appellate Court's decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellate Court's finding that the landlord's need was not bonafide was perverse and not supported by evidence; the Trial Court's decree of eviction was correct.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition filed under art. 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner/landlord who is original plaintiff has challenged the reversing judgment of Appellate Court whereby decree of eviction of present respondents/defendants/original tenants by Trial Court has been set aside & his suit came to be dismissed.

Procedural History

Landlord filed eviction proceedings before Rent Controller in 1988/89; permission granted in 2001; quit notice issued; suit filed; Trial Court decreed eviction; Appellate Court reversed; landlord filed writ petition under Article 227.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 227
  • C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(vi)
  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 106
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Attempt to Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Failure to Prove Identity. Conviction under Section 307 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Establish Beyond Reasonable Doubt that Appellant Was the Assai...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Landlord's Petition in Eviction Case Based on Bonafide Need Under C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 — Reversing Appellate Court's Dismissal of Suit.