Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, legal representative of the deceased landlord Om Prakash Suri, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 18th February 1998 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kalyan (Appeal Court), which reversed the eviction order dated 30th April 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Ulhasnagar (Trial Court). The landlord had instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant from Flat No.24, Radheshyam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., O.T. Section, Ulhasnagar, on grounds of default in payment of rent and municipal taxes, non-user without reasonable cause, and bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Trial Court ordered eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The tenant appealed, and the Appeal Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the eviction order. The landlord then filed the present writ petition. The High Court heard the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Vinod N. Tayade, while the respondent remained unrepresented despite service. The court examined the submissions and the impugned order, and found that the Appeal Court had failed to properly appreciate the scope and import of Section 13(1)(g) and the evidence on record. The High Court set aside the Appeal Court's order and restored the Trial Court's eviction order, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Eviction - The landlord sought eviction on ground of bonafide requirement for his own use and occupation. The Trial Court ordered eviction, but the Appeal Court reversed it. The High Court held that the Appeal Court failed to appreciate the scope of Section 13(1)(g) and the evidence on record, and restored the Trial Court's order. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appeal Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's eviction order on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February 1998 of the Appeal Court, and restored the eviction order dated 30th April 1994 passed by the Trial Court.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement
- Eviction
- Landlord-tenant
- Rent control
- Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 25
WRIT PETITION NO. 4752 OF 1998
Mr. Vinod N. Tayade for the Petitioner; None present for the Respondent
Smt. S.O.Suri Alias Smt. S.S. Gharati (Legal Heir of deceased Om Prakash Suri)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging appellate court's reversal of eviction order in a landlord-tenant dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (landlord) sought restoration of Trial Court's eviction order against the respondent-tenant.
Filing Reason
The Appeal Court set aside the Trial Court's eviction order which was based on bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Civil Judge (J.D.) Ulhasnagar) ordered eviction on 30th April 1994; Appeal Court (IInd Additional District Judge, Kalyan) reversed it on 18th February 1998.
Issues
Whether the Appeal Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's eviction order on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Tayade for the petitioner submitted that the Appeal Court failed to appreciate the scope and import of Section 13(1)(g) and the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appeal Court misappreciated the scope of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act and the evidence on record, warranting interference by the High Court.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the impugned judgment and order dated 18th February 1998 made by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kalyan (Appeal Court), reversing judgment and order dated 30th April 1994 made by Civil Judge (J.D.) Ulhasnagar (Trial Court) ordering eviction of the respondent from Flat No.24, Radheshyam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., O.T. Section, Ulhasnagar421 003 (Suit premises).
Mr.Tayade the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order made by the Appeal Court warrants interference, because, the Appeal Court, has failed to appreciate scope and import of the provisions contained in Section 13(1)(g) of the Rent Control Act.
Procedural History
The landlord filed a suit for eviction in the Trial Court, which ordered eviction on 30th April 1994. The tenant appealed to the Appeal Court, which reversed the eviction order on 18th February 1998. The landlord then filed the present writ petition in the High Court on 23rd June 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(g)
