Case Note & Summary
The case involves a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant/tenant, Hari Govind Ranade, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20/09/2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2001 by the 9th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune. The appellate court had confirmed the eviction decree dated 30/01/2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 629 of 1998 by the Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune. The original plaintiff/landlord, Keshav Alias Suhas Nilkanth Dandekar, had filed the suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises, which consisted of three rooms admeasuring approximately 300 sq.ft. on the ground floor of a building in Pune. The grounds for eviction were unauthorized subletting and nuisance. The trial court and the appellate court both found that the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's written consent and that the subtenants were causing nuisance to the neighbors. The High Court, in this petition, examined the concurrent findings of fact and held that there was no perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground of unauthorized subletting by the tenant. The courts below found that the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's written consent. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the tenant failed to prove consent. (Paras 1-10)
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord also sought eviction on the ground of nuisance caused by the tenant's subtenants. The courts below found that the subtenants were involved in anti-social activities, causing nuisance to neighbors. The High Court affirmed the findings, holding that the tenant is responsible for the acts of his subtenants. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's legal heirs are entitled to challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding unauthorized subletting and nuisance, and whether the eviction decree under the Bombay Rent Act is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent
- Nuisance
- Eviction under Bombay Rent Act
- Section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 8766 of 2004
Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sandeep Phatak & Mr. Adhik A. Kadam For Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prasad Keluskar i/b. Mr. G. H. Keluskar For Respondent.
Hari Govind Ranade, since deceased through his legal heirs: 1. Smt. Rekha Hari Ranade (deleted as LRs are already on record), 2. Sudhanva Hari Ranade, 3. Sidarshan Hari Ranade, 4. Surendra Hari Ranade
Keshav Alias Suhas Nilkanth Dandekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 challenging eviction decree in rent control matter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (legal heirs of tenant) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the appellate court and trial court.
Filing Reason
The tenant's legal heirs challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding unauthorized subletting and nuisance, which led to the eviction decree.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune) passed eviction decree on 30/01/2001 in Civil Suit No. 629 of 1998. Appellate court (9th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune) confirmed the decree on 20/09/2004 in Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2001.
Issues
Whether the tenant's legal heirs can challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding unauthorized subletting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act?
Whether the tenant's legal heirs can challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding nuisance under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence.
Respondent argued that the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that under Article 227, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or error of law. In this case, the courts below had correctly found that the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's written consent and that the subtenants were causing nuisance. Therefore, the eviction decree under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act was justified.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, legal heirs of Defendant/Tenant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 20/09/2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2001 by 9th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Pune by which Judgment and Decree dated 30/01/2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 629 of 1998 by Judge of Small Causes Court, Pune granting eviction decree, is confirmed.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff/landlord filed Civil Suit No. 629 of 1998 in the Small Causes Court, Pune, seeking eviction under the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed eviction on 30/01/2001. The tenant appealed to the District Court, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2001, which was dismissed on 20/09/2004. The tenant's legal heirs then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(e), Section 13(1)(a)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
