Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Subhash Narsopant Saundankar and Mangilal Laxman Saundankar, are the legal representatives of the original landlord Shantabai, who filed a suit for eviction against the respondents, tenants Chandrakant Babanrao Salunke and others, in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985. The suit was for recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent on grounds of bona fide need and default in payment of rent. The trial court decreed the suit on 16.11.1991, directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession and pay arrears of rent, damages, and notice charges. The defendants appealed to the Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992, which was allowed on 2.2.2000, reversing the trial court's decree. The landlord then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellate court had ignored the landlord's bona fide requirement and the tenant's default. The court noted that the tenant had not paid rent regularly and that the landlord's need for the premises was genuine. The High Court held that the appellate court's judgment was perverse and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored. The court directed the tenants to vacate the premises within three months.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's need for suit premises for personal use - The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree for possession, but the High Court found that the appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement and the tenant's default. Held that the appellate court's judgment was perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant's failure to pay rent regularly - The trial court had decreed possession on the ground of default, but the appellate court reversed it. The High Court restored the trial court's decree, holding that the tenant had not paid rent regularly and was in default (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree for possession on grounds of bona fide need and default in payment of rent.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992 dated 2.2.2000 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule in Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985 dated 16.11.1991 is restored. The respondents are directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioners within three months.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Default in payment of rent
- Appellate court's reversal of trial court decree
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
- Consideration of evidence by appellate court
