Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenant, Shyamsundar Chandmal Zanwar, against the concurrent eviction decrees passed by the trial court and the lower appellate court in favour of the landlord, Gulabraoji Tukaramji Maske. The landlord, aged 85, sought eviction of the tenant from a shop block adjacent to his existing jewellery shop, claiming bonafide requirement for expansion of the family business to be run by his grandson, who was then studying. The tenant contested the eviction primarily on the ground that neither the son nor the grandson of the landlord entered the witness box to depose about the need, and therefore, an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 should be drawn against the landlord. The trial court and the lower appellate court concurrently found that the landlord had established his bonafide requirement. In revision before the Bombay High Court, the tenant reiterated the argument regarding non-examination of the beneficiaries. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the landlord himself had deposed about the requirement for expansion of the family business, and the tenant had not cross-examined the landlord on this aspect. The Court observed that the landlord, being the owner and head of the family, was the best person to speak about the family business needs. The non-examination of the son or grandson was not fatal, especially when the tenant failed to challenge the landlord's testimony. The Court further noted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse, and in a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld. The Court also directed that the tenant be given three months' time to vacate the premises voluntarily.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Landlord's Need for Grandson - The landlord, aged 85, sought eviction of tenant for expansion of family jewellery business for his grandson. The tenant argued that neither the son nor the grandson entered the witness box, warranting adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that the landlord himself deposed about the need, and the grandson's non-examination is not fatal as the landlord is the best person to speak about family business requirements. (Paras 2-4) B) Evidence Act - Adverse Inference - Section 114 illustration (g) - The tenant contended that non-production of the son or grandson as witnesses should lead to an inference that their evidence would be unfavourable. The Court rejected this, noting that the landlord's testimony was sufficient and the tenant failed to cross-examine the landlord on the need. The concurrent findings of fact by courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 2-4) C) Civil Procedure Code - Revision - Scope under Section 115 - The Court reiterated that in a revision, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the concurrent findings of bonafide requirement were supported by evidence, and no interference was warranted. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-examination of the son or grandson for whom the suit premises were required for business expansion warrants an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872, thereby vitiating the concurrent findings of bonafide need.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The concurrent findings of bonafide requirement are upheld. The tenant is granted three months' time to vacate the suit premises voluntarily.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- Section 114 illustration (g) of Evidence Act
- 1872
- adverse inference for non-examination of beneficiary
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
