Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants and legal representatives of the original tenant, challenged the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The landladies had sought eviction on two grounds: (1) that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence under Section 13(1)(l), and (2) that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by the landladies for their personal occupation under Section 13(1)(g). The trial court decreed eviction on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners argued that the acquisition of alternate residences was by the sons of the tenant, not by the tenant himself, and therefore the ground under Section 13(1)(l) was not made out. They also contended that the courts below failed to properly consider the ground under Section 13(1)(g) and the proviso regarding comparative hardship under Section 13(2). The High Court held that the acquisition of alternate residence by the sons cannot be attributed to the tenant for the purpose of Section 13(1)(l), as the provision requires the tenant's own acquisition. The court found jurisdictional error in the eviction order on that ground. Regarding the ground under Section 13(1)(g), the High Court noted that the courts below did not adequately consider the proviso and Section 13(2), which require the court to weigh the hardship to the tenant against the landlord's need. The High Court set aside the eviction decree on the ground under Section 13(1)(l) and remanded the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 13(1)(g) and the comparative hardship under Section 13(2). The petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Acquisition of Alternate Residence - The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) requires that the tenant himself has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence. Acquisition by the tenant's sons, even in a joint family, cannot be attributed to the tenant unless it is shown that the acquisition was for the benefit of the tenant or that the tenant had control over the property. The courts below erred in holding that the sons' acquisition attracted the ground. (Paras 5-8) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - The courts below did not properly consider the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) and the proviso requiring consideration of comparative hardship under Section 13(2). The matter requires reconsideration on this aspect. (Paras 9-10) C) Rent Control - Eviction - Jurisdictional Error - The trial court and appellate court committed jurisdictional error in ordering eviction under Section 13(1)(l) without proper application of law. The High Court set aside the eviction decree on that ground and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 13(1)(g) and Section 13(2). (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition of alternate suitable residence by the sons of the tenant can be attributed to the tenant for the purpose of eviction under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the courts below erred in not considering the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) in light of the proviso and Section 13(2) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The eviction decree on the ground under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration of the ground under Section 13(1)(g) and the proviso under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Law Points
- Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947 requires acquisition of alternate suitable residence by the tenant himself
- not by his sons
- joint family status alone does not make sons' acquisition attributable to tenant
- eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) requires consideration of comparative hardship under Section 13(2) of the Act
