Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute where the landlord, Dilip Gyanchand Khemani, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2006 for eviction of the tenant, Vijay Gangadhar Dande (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), from two shop blocks admeasuring 450 sq.ft. super built up area, where the tenant was running a country liquor shop. The landlord claimed bonafide requirement to start a Beer Bar in the premises, asserting that he had sufficient experience in liquor business as he managed Janta Wine Shop near Kamal Chowk and had adequate funds. The suit was decreed on 11.01.2011 by the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur. The tenant's appeal, Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2011, was dismissed by the learned District Judge-2, Nagpur on 19.06.2014. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court examined the pleadings and evidence, noting that the landlord had specifically averred his experience and financial capacity in paragraph 6 of the plaint, which was not effectively rebutted by the tenant. The court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court also noted that the tenant had not challenged the findings as being based on no evidence or being perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree and confirming the landlord's bonafide requirement.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Landlord's Need for Business - The landlord sought eviction of tenant for bonafide requirement to run a Beer Bar in the suit premises, two shop blocks admeasuring 450 sq.ft. - The courts below decreed eviction based on evidence of landlord's experience in liquor business and financial capacity - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord for running a Beer Bar in the suit premises can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of Article 227
- Eviction under Rent Control Act
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 122
WRIT PETITION NO. 4591 of 2014
Shri A.M.Gordey (Senior Counsel) assisted by Shri Sudhir Malode for Petitioner, Shri A.Shelat for Respondent
Vijay Gangadhar Dande (dead) through Legal Representatives: 1) Kusum Vijay Dhande, 2) Sanjog Vijay Dhande, 3) Sachin Vijay Dande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact in eviction suit based on landlord's bonafide requirement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the eviction decree and appellate dismissal under Article 227.
Filing Reason
Tenant aggrieved by concurrent findings of fact regarding landlord's bonafide requirement to run a Beer Bar.
Previous Decisions
Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2006 decreed on 11.01.2011 by Court of Small Causes; Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2011 dismissed on 19.06.2014 by District Judge-2, Nagpur.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide requirement of landlord are perverse or based on no evidence warranting interference under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the landlord's requirement was not bonafide and that the findings were not supported by evidence.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that no interference was warranted under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The landlord's bonafide requirement was established through pleadings and evidence of experience and financial capacity.
Judgment Excerpts
The question involved is of the bonafide requirement of the landlord in respect of suit premises which are two shop blocks, total admeasuring 450 sq.ft. super built up area, in which country liquor shop is being run by the petitioner.
The requirement put forth by the landlord was for running a Beer Bar.
The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence.
Procedural History
Landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2006 for eviction on ground of bonafide requirement. Suit decreed on 11.01.2011 by Court of Small Causes. Tenant appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2011, which was dismissed on 19.06.2014 by District Judge-2, Nagpur. Tenant then filed Writ Petition No. 4591 of 2014 under Article 227, which was dismissed on 04.02.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
