Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the tenant, Natwarlal Dahyabhai Shah (since deceased through L.Rs.), challenging the orders of the courts below which granted a decree for eviction and possession in favor of the landlady, Smt. Jadaobai Mishrimal Lalwani (since deceased through L.Rs.), under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Rent Act). The landlady had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1988 on 06/06/1988 seeking possession of a shop admeasuring 15 x 30 ft. situated at Hat Darwaja Bazar, Nandurbar, which was rented to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The landlady claimed bonafide requirement for herself and her husband to start business in the premises. The tenant opposed the suit, contending that the bonafide need was not genuine and that the husband was already engaged in money-lending business. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the landlady. The tenant appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing counsel, noted that the courts below had concurrently found the landlady's need to be bonafide. The court observed that the tenant had not pointed out any perversity in the findings. The court held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction decree on ground of bonafide requirement - Landlady sought possession of shop for starting business for herself and her husband - Tenant contested genuineness - Courts below concurrently found need genuine - High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere - Held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction unless perverse (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the bonafide need of the landlady under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the landlady's bonafide need was genuine.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Eviction decree
- Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 19
Writ Petition No. 1015 of 2001 with Civil Application No. 3436 of 2001
Mr. S.P. Shah holding for Mr. Girish Rane for Petitioners; Mr. V.D. Sonawane holding for Mr. S.P. Brahme for respondent No.1A
Natwarlal Dahyabhai Shah (since deceased through L.Rs.)
Smt. Jadaobai w/o Mishrimal Lalwani (since deceased through L.Rs.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging concurrent findings of courts below granting eviction decree under Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-tenant sought to quash the orders of the courts below granting eviction and possession to the landlady.
Filing Reason
The tenant challenged the eviction decree on the ground that the landlady's bonafide need was not genuine.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar) decreed the suit in favor of the landlady; the appellate court (Civil Appeal No.71 of 1995) dismissed the tenant's appeal.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the bonafide need of the landlady under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-tenant argued that the bonafide need of the landlady was not genuine and that the husband was already engaged in money-lending business.
Landlady contended that she required the premises for starting business for herself and her husband.
Ratio Decidendi
In writ jurisdiction, the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The tenant failed to point out any perversity in the findings of the courts below regarding the landlady's bonafide need.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard respective Counsel. The present petitioner-tenant has questioned the order passed by the Courts below in granting decree for eviction and possession in favour of the landlady/her legal heirs under the clause 'bonafide need' as contemplated under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947).
In the proceedings initiated before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, the landlady canvassed bonafide requirement for her own and her husband...
The learned Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar granted decree in favour of the landlady which was subject matter of the Civil Appeal No.71 of 1995 before the Court of District Judge-2, Nandurbar and the said appeal came to be dismissed.
Procedural History
The landlady filed Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1988 on 06/06/1988 for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit. The tenant appealed in Civil Appeal No.71 of 1995, which was dismissed. The tenant then filed the present writ petition in 2001.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(g)
