Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords of commercial premises in Kolhapur, filed a suit for eviction against the tenant on grounds of non-user, erection of permanent structure without consent, and reasonable and bona fide requirement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28 August 1991, and the Appeal Court affirmed on 31 January 2000. In the present writ petition, the landlords pressed only the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The tenant argued that the concurrent findings of fact were based on material evidence, including an admission by plaintiff No.2 (the sole witness for landlords) that the plaintiffs were not in need of the suit premises. The High Court, per Justice M.S. Sonak, held that the concurrent findings of fact were amply supported by the record and that the admission against interest was fatal to the landlords' case. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Burden of Proof - The landlord must prove genuine need for possession; admission by landlord's witness that they are not in need is fatal - The court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on such admission cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and Appeal Court, dismissing the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reasonable and bona fide requirement
- concurrent findings of fact
- admission against interest
- burden of proof
- landlord-tenant law
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 27
WRIT PETITION NO. 6991 OF 2000
Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar with Mr. G. H. Keluskar and Mr. Devidas H. Keluskar for Petitioners, Mr. A. M. Kulkarni with Mr. Sarthak Diwan for Respondent
Smt. Shalini Wamanrao Korade & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition against concurrent judgments dismissing eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
Landlords sought recovery of possession of suit premises from tenant.
Filing Reason
Landlords claimed reasonable and bona fide requirement of suit premises.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed suit on 28 August 1991; Appeal Court dismissed appeal on 31 January 2000.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact on reasonable and bona fide requirement are perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Landlords argued that courts failed to apply correct tests and ignored relevant material.
Tenant argued that concurrent findings are based on admission by landlord's witness that they are not in need.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact, especially when based on admission against interest by the landlord's own witness, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
plaintiff No.2, the sole deponent on behalf of the plaintiffs, has in terms, admitted in the course of cross-examination that the plaintiffs are not in need to get the possession of the suit premises.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit No. 820 of 1980 filed in 1980 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur. Dismissed on 28 August 1991. Appeal dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kolhapur on 31 January 2000. Present writ petition filed in 2000.
