Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sou Jahida Sikandar Ustad and Shri Sikandar Gaus Ustad, were tenants of a single room premises admeasuring 15 ft. x 10 ft. in Kolhapur. The original tenant was the father of petitioner No.1, who after his death became the tenant, and after her marriage, her husband (petitioner No.2) also resided there. The respondents, the landlords, filed a suit (Suit No.900 of 1986) for recovery of possession on the grounds of bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. The plaint was later amended to include the ground that the petitioners had acquired suitable alternate accommodation, namely a service quarter provided by the State Transport Corporation at Kolhapur on 5 May 1991. The petitioners filed a written statement denying the allegations. The trial court, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, decreed the suit on 11 November 1997, ordering eviction. The petitioners appealed to the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, who dismissed the appeal on 13 July 1999. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. It noted that the petitioners had indeed acquired alternate accommodation, which was a relevant factor in assessing hardship. The court found no perversity in the findings regarding bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. The High Court held that the petitioners' acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation disentitled them to claim hardship, and the eviction decree was justified. The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - The landlord sought eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement and arrears of rent. The trial court and first appellate court decreed eviction. The High Court upheld the findings, noting that the tenants had acquired suitable alternate accommodation, which negated their claim of hardship. Held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement and arrears of rent were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Alternate Accommodation - The tenants acquired a service quarter from the State Transport Corporation on 5 May 1991. The court held that this constituted suitable alternate accommodation, and therefore the tenants could not resist eviction on the ground of hardship. The acquisition of alternate accommodation was a relevant factor in determining the balance of convenience. (Paras 2-8) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Arrears of Rent - The landlord also sought eviction on the ground that the tenants were in arrears of rent. The courts below found that the tenants had not paid rent regularly. The High Court affirmed this finding, holding that the tenants' default in payment of rent was a valid ground for eviction under the relevant rent control legislation. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below correctly decreed eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement and arrears of rent, and whether the tenants' acquisition of alternate accommodation disentitles them to protection against eviction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by tenant
- Arrears of rent
- Eviction decree
- Hardship to tenant
