Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant Suklal Kalu Thorat (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), filed a writ petition challenging the judgment dated 28/10/1988 of the 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985, and the judgment dated 20/06/1996 of the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No.322/1988. The trial court had held the defendant guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and directed him to vacate the tenanted premises. The appellate court confirmed this order. The petitioner sought to quash both judgments and dismiss the suit. The respondent, original plaintiff Ramkrushna Hari Wani (since deceased, represented by legal heirs), opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing the advocate for the petitioners, noted that the courts below had concurrently found that the tenant used the premises for gambling and illegal activities, causing nuisance and annoyance. The High Court held that these concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant used the premises for gambling and illegal activities, causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and neighbours. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the tenant guilty of nuisance and ordered eviction. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact are based on evidence and do not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-6)
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant's use of the premises for gambling and illegal activities constitutes nuisance and annoyance within the meaning of Section 13(1)(c). The courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and the High Court found no perversity or error of law. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court that the tenant caused nuisance and annoyance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court that the tenant was guilty of nuisance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and the order of eviction.
Law Points
- Nuisance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act
- 1947
- Eviction on ground of nuisance
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 18
WRIT PETITION NO.3560 OF 1996
Mr. L.V. Sangit for the petitioners
Suklal s/o Kalu Thorat (since deceased, by his heirs and legal representatives)
Ramkrushna s/o Hari Wani (since deceased, by his heirs and legal representatives)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent judgments of eviction on ground of nuisance under rent control legislation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original defendant/tenant) sought to quash the judgments of the trial court and appellate court ordering eviction and to dismiss the suit for possession.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the trial court's judgment dated 28/10/1988 holding him guilty of nuisance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act and directing eviction, which was confirmed by the appellate court on 20/06/1996.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon) in Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985 held the defendant guilty of nuisance and directed eviction. Appellate court (Additional District Judge, Jalgaon) in Civil Appeal No.322/1988 confirmed the trial court's order.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below that the tenant caused nuisance and annoyance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act are perverse or suffer from any error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the judgments of the courts below were illegal, invalid, and improper and sought to quash them.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court that the tenant used the premises for gambling and illegal activities, causing nuisance and annoyance, are based on evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or error of law. Therefore, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment dated 28/10/1988 passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985 by which the original defendant was held guilty of causing nuisance and annoyance u/s 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and was directed to vacate the possession of the tenanted portion.
The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon dated 20/06/1996 delivered in Civil Appeal No.322/1988, filed by the defendant, confirming the order of the Trial Court.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.530/1985 in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Jalgaon seeking eviction of the defendant on ground of nuisance under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial court decreed the suit on 28/10/1988. The defendant appealed to the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No.322/1988, which was dismissed on 20/06/1996. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(c)
- Constitution of India: 227
