Case Note & Summary
The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The petitioners (tenants) were the original defendants in an eviction petition filed by the respondents (landlords) before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 22 of the Act. The tenants appealed to the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the eviction order. Aggrieved, the tenants filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The main legal issue was whether the High Court could interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities. The tenants argued that the findings were perverse and that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction. The landlords contended that the findings were based on evidence and that the writ jurisdiction was limited. The court analyzed the scope of Article 227 and held that it is supervisory in nature and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The court found that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction and that the findings were supported by evidence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the requirement was bona fide. The tenant challenged these findings in a writ petition under Article 227. Held that the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The concurrent findings were based on evidence and not interfered with. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - The High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. It can interfere only if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record or if the findings are perverse. In the present case, the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were based on evidence and were not perverse. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 5-10) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Jurisdictional Error - Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The tenant argued that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. The court examined the provisions and found that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction. No jurisdictional error was committed. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, particularly regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord for eviction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory
- not appellate
- concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or without jurisdiction
- Section 22 of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Act
- 1968 provides for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement
- Rent Controller has jurisdiction to decide eviction petitions
- no jurisdictional error if findings are based on evidence.
