Case Note & Summary
The present Civil Revision Application was filed by the tenant (applicant) under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, which decreed eviction against him. The suit premises, a room admeasuring 120 sq. ft. in a building called 'Narayan Ashram', were let to the defendant for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 60. The plaintiff, one of the legal heirs of the original landlord, filed an eviction suit on two grounds: non-user under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and bonafide requirement under Section 16(1)(g) of the same Act. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate bench. The tenant then approached the High Court in revision. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and noted that the tenant had not occupied the suit premises for more than six months prior to the suit, as he had shifted to another residence. The landlord's son required the premises for his own residence as he was living in a rented accommodation. The court held that the grounds of non-user and bonafide requirement were established. The revisional court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings of the courts below and dismissed the revision application, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User - Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Tenant's failure to occupy suit premises for more than six months without reasonable cause - Landlord proved that tenant had shifted to another residence and the suit premises were locked - Held that the ground of non-user was established (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Landlord's requirement of suit premises for residence of his son - Landlord's son was residing in a rented premises and needed the suit premises - Tenant's alternative accommodation was available - Held that the bonafide requirement was proved (Paras 1-10). C) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope of interference - Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and appellate court - No jurisdictional error or perversity shown - Held that revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the grounds of non-user and bonafide requirement warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 30th July 2011 and 20th January 2015 are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Non-user of premises for six months without reasonable cause constitutes ground for eviction under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Bonafide requirement of landlord for own use and occupation is a valid ground for eviction under Section 16(1)(g) of the Act
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors and not re-appreciation of evidence
