Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords of a shop admeasuring 7 x 9½ sq ft in Nashik, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 570 of 1983 against the respondent tenant seeking eviction and possession under Section 13(1)(g) (bonafide requirement) and Section 13(1)(k) (non-user and nuisance) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The trial court dismissed the suit on 31 August 1987, finding that the landlords failed to prove any of the grounds. The landlords appealed to the Additional District Judge, Nashik, who confirmed the dismissal. Aggrieved, the landlords filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact and noted that the courts below had appreciated the evidence and concluded that the bonafide requirement was not genuine, the tenant had used the premises for tailoring, and nuisance was not established. The High Court held that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlords sought eviction on ground of bonafide requirement for business of one of the landlords - Trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the requirement was not genuine and was a pretext - High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 as findings were not perverse (Paras 1-10). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User - Section 13(1)(k) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlords alleged that tenant had not used the suit shop for a continuous period of six months without reasonable cause - Courts below found that tenant had used the premises for tailoring business and non-user was not established - High Court upheld concurrent findings (Paras 1-10). C) Rent Control - Eviction - Nuisance - Section 13(1)(k) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlords claimed that tenant caused nuisance by storing waste material - Evidence showed no substantial nuisance proved - Courts below rejected the ground - High Court affirmed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners/landlords are entitled to eviction of the respondent/tenant on grounds of bonafide requirement, non-user, and nuisance under Section 13(1)(g) and (k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement must be genuine and not a pretext
- Non-user must be continuous and without reasonable cause
- Nuisance must be substantial and proved by evidence
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse
