Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of a property in Thane, filed a suit for eviction of the respondents from a gala (shop) on grounds of default in rent, unlawful subletting, and bonafide requirement. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 17 March 1989, and the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 7 October 1995. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that there were concurrent findings of fact by both courts below. The petitioners argued that material evidence was ignored and incorrect legal tests were applied. However, the court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the findings. The court observed that the petitioners had accepted Thakkar as the tenant, and the claim of bonafide requirement was not substantiated. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's claim for eviction on ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement - Courts below concurrently found that landlord failed to prove requirement - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 1-5).
B) Rent Control - Unlawful Subletting - Section 15 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord alleged unlawful assignment/subletting - Courts below found that landlord accepted Thakkar as tenant - Held that on facts, no unlawful subletting was established (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court regarding bonafide requirement and unlawful subletting suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Concurrent findings of fact upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- bonafide requirement
- unlawful subletting
- jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 55
Writ Petition No. 1940 of 1996
Mr. P. G. Karande for Petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Datar with Mr. Rohan Dharandale for Respondents
Smt. Taralakshmi Maneklal Thanawalla (since deceased) & Ors.
Shantilal Makanji Dave & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact in a landlord-tenant eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought eviction of respondents from suit premises on grounds of default, unlawful subletting, and bonafide requirement.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that respondents had unlawfully assigned tenancy and that petitioners required the premises bonafide.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed suit on 17 March 1989; appellate court dismissed appeal on 7 October 1995.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide requirement are perverse?
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding unlawful subletting are perverse?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that material evidence was ignored and incorrect legal tests were applied by both courts.
Respondents submitted that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed as there was no perversity.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below cannot be interfered with under Article 227 unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The landlord failed to prove bonafide requirement and unlawful subletting.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition is directed against the orders 17 March 1989 and 7 October 1995 dismissing petitioners suit seeking eviction of the respondents from the suit premises.
Mr. Datar, the learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts and there is no perversity in the record of the same.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1349 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Thane. The suit was dismissed on 17 March 1989. Appeal against dismissal was dismissed by District Judge, Thane on 7 October 1995. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(g), Section 15
