Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenants (applicants) challenging the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Pune, dated 21 June 2006, which allowed the landlords' appeal and directed the tenants to hand over possession of the suit premises. The suit premises is a shop on the ground floor of CTS No.1383 within Pune Municipal Corporation limits. The premises were originally let out to the father of the applicants, and after his demise, the applicants continued as tenants, running a business from the shop. The landlords (respondents) filed Regular Civil Suit No.1646 of 1988 in the Small Causes Court, Pune, seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The landlords contended that there were 10 members in their family, they had only five rooms in their possession which were inadequate, Respondent No.2 (an advocate) did not have any office premises, Respondent No.3 did not have commercial premises to start his business, and the daughters of Respondent No.4 had no place for school study. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and ordered eviction. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the appellate court's findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship were perverse or based on no evidence. The court noted that the appellate court had considered the evidence and found the landlords' need to be genuine and the hardship to the landlords greater than that to the tenants. The High Court held that findings of fact recorded by the appellate court are not to be interfered with in revision unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the appellate court's decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the revision application, confirming the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlords sought eviction of tenants from shop premises claiming need for advocate office and business for family members - Appellate court allowed eviction finding need genuine and hardship greater on landlords - High Court in revision held that findings of fact on bona fide need and comparative hardship are not to be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the appellate court's decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference warranted (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit and ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide need under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, confirming the appellate court's judgment and decree directing the applicants to hand over possession of the suit premises.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- comparative hardship
- eviction of tenant
- Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
