Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the original defendant (tenant) against the respondent (original plaintiff/landlord) challenging the judgment and order of the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, dated 5.9.2011, in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009. The appellate court had dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree of eviction passed by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008. The suit was filed by the respondent Meerabai for eviction of the applicant-tenant on grounds of bonafide requirement and on the basis that the lease granted by a registered agreement of 15 years had lapsed. The trial court proceeded ex-parte after the bailiff reported refusal of summons and relied on the affidavit of the son of the respondent to decree the suit. The revision application raised grounds that the judgments and orders of the courts below were illegal, that the trial court should not have believed the evidence adduced by the respondent, and that greater hardship would be suffered by the applicant. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the revision and dismissed it, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Lapse of Lease Term - The suit for eviction was filed by the landlord claiming bonafide requirement and on the basis that the lease granted by registered agreement of 15 years had lapsed. The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte after the bailiff reported refusal of summons. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The revision was dismissed as the concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing eviction on grounds of bonafide requirement and lapse of lease term, and whether the trial court should have believed the evidence adduced by the respondent.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the judgment and order of the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, which confirmed the eviction decree passed by the trial court.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement
- Lapse of lease term
- Ex-parte decree
- Hardship
- Eviction of tenant
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 170
Civil Revision Application No.38 of 2012
Shri K.D. Bade Patil for applicant, Shri P.S. Agrawal for respondent
Amin s/o Fatehalibhai Veerani
Meerabai w/o Kunjilal Bhartiya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against eviction decree in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (original defendant/tenant) sought to set aside the judgment and order of the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, which confirmed the eviction decree passed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The applicant claimed that the trial court proceeded ex-parte after bailiff reported refusal of summons and relied on the affidavit of the respondent's son, and that greater hardship would be suffered by the applicant.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (4th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded) decreed the suit in Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008. The appellate court (Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded) dismissed the appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009 on 5.9.2011.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in believing the evidence adduced by the respondent?
Whether greater hardship would be suffered by the applicant?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the trial court should not have believed the evidence adduced by the respondent and that greater hardship would be suffered by the applicant.
The respondent supported the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below were not shown to be perverse or illegal, and thus no interference was warranted in revision.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicant claims that, the trial Court had proceeded exparte in suit after the bailiff reported refusal of the summons and had relied on the affidavit of the son of respondent and decreed the suit.
The suit had been brought by the respondent claiming bonafide requirement and on the basis that, the lease granted by registered agreement of 15 years had lapsed.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.115/2008 for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte. The applicant appealed to the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded, in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2009, which was dismissed on 5.9.2011. The applicant then filed the present Civil Revision Application No.38/2012 in the High Court.
