Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant, Madhukar Bapu Gurav (since deceased), challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bandra, Mumbai, in Appeal No.13 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, thereby confirming the decree of eviction passed against him on 30.11.2009 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.5444 of 1985. The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs (respondents herein) for recovery of possession and arrears of rent in respect of suit premises consisting of two rooms with an open verandah converted into a room and a bathroom, situated in Sharma Juni Chawl, Sharma Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai. The suit was governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) as it existed prior to the 1987 amendment. The trial court decreed the suit on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The petitioners contended that the findings were perverse and that the tenant had a bona fide defence. The respondents supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The court noted that the tenant had failed to pay rent for a period of more than six months and had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the eviction decree. The court also disposed of the interim application seeking substitution of legal heirs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(a) - The tenant failed to pay rent for a period of more than six months and did not tender the arrears within the statutory period. The courts below concurrently held that the tenant was a defaulter. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 15(1) - The tenant sublet the suit premises without the written consent of the landlord. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the subletting was established were upheld by the High Court as no interference was warranted under Article 227. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases where the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the eviction decree. The interim application (IA No. 6515 of 2024) was disposed of as infructuous.
Law Points
- Eviction decree confirmed on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Article 227
- Bombay Rent Act 1947 applies pre-1987 amendment
- Subletting without landlord's consent is a ground for eviction
- Legal heirs of deceased tenant cannot claim protection if tenant had no defence
