Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the tenant (petitioner) challenging the decree for eviction passed by the appellate court under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondents (landlords) are owners of House No.54 at Itwari, Nagpur. Two shop blocks on the ground floor were let out to the predecessor of the petitioners in 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs.215. The landlords, two brothers, sought eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the Act, claiming they were carrying on business in a small shop (3 ft. x 9 ft.) owned by one Rajendrakumar Parmar, each using half portion. They wanted to expand their business and settle their sons. A notice was issued on 26-03-2002, followed by Regular Civil Suit No.261/2002. The tenant opposed, stating the need was not bonafide and that the landlords' sons were employed elsewhere. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed eviction. The tenant then filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the appellate court's findings and held that the appellate court had considered the evidence, including the fact that the landlords were doing business in a small premises and needed the suit premises for expansion and for their sons. The court found no perversity in the appellate court's conclusion that the need was bonafide. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Need - Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Eviction - Landlord sought eviction of tenant for bonafide need to expand business and settle sons - Tenant challenged decree in writ petition - Held that appellate court's concurrent finding of bonafide need based on evidence is not perverse and does not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, was perverse or erroneous warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; eviction decree upheld.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Section 16(1)(g) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Eviction decree
- Appellate court's findings
- No perversity
- Writ jurisdiction limited
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 147
Writ Petition No.4505 of 2014
Shri S. P. Bhandarkar for petitioners, Shri R. L. Khapre for respondents
Wamanrao S/o Vyankatrao Shinde (since deceased) through legal representatives: Shreedhar S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Girdhar S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Piyush S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Girish S/o Wamanrao Shinde
Mrs. Munnibai wd/o Parmanand Jain (since deceased) through legal representatives: Gyanchand S/o Parmanand Jain, Virendrakumar S/o Rajkumar Jain, Smt. Kasturibai wd/o Rajkumar Jain
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging eviction decree under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (tenant) sought to quash the appellate court's decree for eviction
Filing Reason
Tenant aggrieved by appellate court's decree for eviction on ground of bonafide need
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit; appellate court reversed and decreed eviction
Issues
Whether the appellate court's finding of bonafide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, is perverse or erroneous.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the need of the landlords was not bonafide and that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decision.
Respondents argued that the appellate court correctly appreciated evidence and found bonafide need for business expansion and settling sons.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's concurrent finding of bonafide need based on evidence is not perverse and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the landlords under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
The appellate Court has considered the evidence on record and has found that the need of the landlords was bonafide.
In the light of the above, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the appellate Court.
Procedural History
Landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.261/2002 for eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Trial court dismissed suit. Landlords appealed under Section 34 of the Act; appellate court allowed appeal and decreed eviction. Tenant filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(g), Section 34
