Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the legal heirs of the original defendant/tenant against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2006 passed by the III Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon, in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit and decreed the suit for possession. The original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No.67 of 1986 under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profits from the original defendant (Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari) on grounds of personal and bona fide requirement, erection of permanent structure without permission, and nuisance. The defendant contested the suit, denying the allegations. The trial court, after evaluating evidence, dismissed the suit and fixed standard rent at Rs.155 per month, directing the defendant to deposit arrears. The plaintiffs appealed, and during the appeal, the first plaintiff died and her legal heirs were brought on record. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and decreed the suit, ordering the defendant to vacate. The defendant's legal heirs challenged this decree in revision under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court had misappreciated the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement. The trial court had correctly noted that the landlord failed to prove that his need was reasonable and bona fide. The appellate court's finding was based on conjectures and not on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord must prove that his requirement is reasonable and bona fide. The trial court, after appreciating evidence, found that the landlord failed to prove such requirement. The appellate court reversed this finding without properly considering the evidence. Held that the appellate court's judgment suffered from material irregularity and was liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-11)
B) Civil Procedure - Revision under Section 115 CPC - Scope - The High Court can interfere if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's finding on bona fide requirement was based on misreading of evidence and thus constituted a material irregularity. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the suit for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, and whether the impugned judgment suffers from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 27.11.2006, and restored the trial court's judgment and decree dated 31.03.1993 dismissing the suit.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement under Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Section 13(1)(g)
- Reasonable and bona fide requirement
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Appellate court's interference with trial court findings
- Section 115 CPC scope
Case Details
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 292 OF 2007
Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi for the Applicants, Mr. Kamlesh Y. Mali for Respondents
Shri. Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Santoshi Harinam Tripathi, 1B. Mahendra Ramkisan Tiwari, 1C. Mahesh Ramkisan Tiwari, 1D. Dinesh Ramkisan Tiwari
Alaknanda Gopalkrishna Badale (since deceased through legal representatives) 1A. Gopalkrish Surajmal Badale, 1B. Pradip Gopalkrishna Badale (since deceased through legal heirs) 1BA. Sarita Pradip Badale, 1BB. Radhika Pradip Badale, 1BC. Devika Pradip Badale, 1BD. Karik Pradip Badale, 1C. Dinesh Gopalkrishna Badal, 1D. Umesh Gopalkrishna Badale, 1E. Manisha Vinod Asawa, 1F. Sonali Rupesh Bhakkat, 1G. Rupali Gopalkrishna Badale, 1H. Vaishali Gopalkrishna Badale, 2. Manojkumar Gopalkrishna Badale, 3. Sandipkumar Gopalkrishna Badale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against appellate decree for possession under rent control laws.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (legal heirs of original defendant/tenant) sought to set aside the appellate decree directing eviction from the suit premises.
Filing Reason
The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the suit and decreed eviction, which the applicants challenged as erroneous.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit for possession and fixed standard rent; appellate court set aside that judgment and decreed the suit.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's finding on bona fide requirement under the Bombay Rent Act.
Whether the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the appellate court misappreciated evidence and that the landlord failed to prove bona fide requirement.
The respondents supported the appellate court's finding that the requirement was bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's reversal of the trial court's finding on bona fide requirement was based on misreading of evidence and conjectures, constituting a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Under Section 115 CPC, the High Court can interfere when the subordinate court acts with material irregularity. The landlord failed to prove reasonable and bona fide requirement as required under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
By this application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) the purported legal heirs/representatives of original Defendant/Tenant are challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993 by III Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon, by which the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.67 of 1986 dated 31.03.1993 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon, is set aside.
The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit and fixed standard rent @ Rs.155/- p.m., directing the Defendant to deposit rent up to date.
The Appeal Court, initially dismissed the appeal...
The appellate court's finding was based on conjectures and not on proper appreciation of evidence.
Procedural History
Original plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.67 of 1986 for possession and arrears under the Bombay Rent Act. Trial court dismissed the suit on 31.03.1993. Plaintiffs appealed in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993, which was allowed by the III Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon on 27.11.2006, decreeing the suit. The defendant's legal heirs filed Civil Revision Application No.292 of 2007 in the High Court, which was allowed on 01.12.2025, restoring the trial court's judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 115
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act): 13(1)(g)
