Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 arises from a landlord-tenant dispute. The original plaintiffs (opponents) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 245 of 1991 seeking eviction of the defendants (applicants) from suit premises comprising one room, oshari, latrine, and open land at Vaghpara, Morbi, on grounds of arrears of rent and availability of alternative accommodation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 30.09.2003, finding no arrears and no case for eviction. The Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2003 reversed the decree on 08.08.2006, holding that while there were no arrears, the tenant Khemchandbhai had admitted in cross-examination that he had alternative accommodation, and thus decreed eviction. The applicants challenged this appellate judgment, arguing that the Appellate Court failed to consider comparative hardship, the number of family members, the suitability and sufficiency of the alleged alternative accommodation, and the extent of the suit premises. The High Court examined the appellate judgment and found that the Appellate Court had not framed or considered the issue of comparative hardship as required under the Rent Act. The court noted that the tenant's admission regarding alternative accommodation was not sufficient to decree eviction without assessing whether the alternative was suitable and sufficient for the tenant's family. The High Court held that the Appellate Court's approach was erroneous and that the decree was unsustainable. Consequently, the Revision Application was allowed, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit was restored. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Alternative Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The Appellate Court decreed eviction solely on the basis of the tenant's admission regarding availability of alternative accommodation, without assessing comparative hardship, number of family members, or suitability of the alternative premises - Held that such a decree is unsustainable as the court must consider all relevant factors including hardship and sufficiency (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court was justified in decreeing eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation without properly considering the comparative hardship, suitability, and sufficiency of the alternative premises for the tenant's family.
Final Decision
The Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 08.08.2006 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.38 of 2003 by the 4th Fast Track Court, Morbi is set aside. The judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.245 of 1991 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Morbi is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Eviction on ground of alternative accommodation requires consideration of comparative hardship
- suitability
- and sufficiency of alternative premises
- Appellate Court must not rely solely on tenant's admission without assessing family size and needs
- Revision under Section 29(2) of Rent Act is maintainable against appellate decree.
