Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords of commercial premises in Solapur, challenged the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Solapur, which reversed the Trial Court's decree of eviction against the respondents, tenants. The suit premises, admeasuring 1511 sq. ft., were originally let out in 1932 to Vishwanath Kanhale for a grocery business named 'Anand Stores'. Subsequently, the business was sold to a partnership firm M/s. Mohanlal Doshi, and later Talakchand Gangaram Doshi continued the business. The landlord, Sadanand Krishnaji Kirloskar, acquired the premises in a family partition in 1977. He filed a suit in 1986 seeking eviction on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement for himself and his two sons, subletting, non-user, and acquisition of alternate accommodation. The Trial Court decreed eviction, but the Appellate Court reversed. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined whether the Appellate Court's findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The Court noted that the landlord had completed a licentiate course in textile manufacturing and had served in mills, but his sons were unemployed and intended to start a business. The tenant had sublet the premises to a third party without consent, had not used the premises for over six months, and had acquired alternate accommodation. The High Court found that the Appellate Court had erred in reversing the Trial Court's concurrent findings of fact, which were based on evidence. The Court restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction, holding that the landlord's requirement was bona fide, subletting was proved, non-user was established, and the tenant had acquired alternate accommodation. The judgment emphasizes that under Article 227, the High Court can interfere if the lower court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction for personal use of himself and his sons for business - Trial Court decreed eviction, Appellate Court reversed - High Court restored Trial Court's decree, holding that landlord's requirement was genuine and reasonable, and Appellate Court's interference was not justified (Paras 1-34). B) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant sublet premises without landlord's consent - Trial Court found subletting proved, Appellate Court reversed - High Court restored Trial Court's finding, noting that tenant failed to prove consent or that subtenant was a partner (Paras 1-34). C) Rent Control - Non-User - Section 13(1)(k) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant did not use premises for six months without reasonable cause - Trial Court found non-user proved, Appellate Court reversed - High Court restored Trial Court's finding, as tenant failed to provide satisfactory explanation (Paras 1-34). D) Rent Control - Acquisition of Alternate Accommodation - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Tenant acquired alternate suitable accommodation - Trial Court found acquisition proved, Appellate Court reversed - High Court restored Trial Court's finding, as tenant had acquired other premises for business (Paras 1-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree of eviction on grounds of reasonable and bona fide requirement, subletting, non-user, and acquisition of alternate accommodation under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction dated 29 June 1991. Civil Application No. 3107 of 2010 also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Reasonable and bona fide requirement of landlord
- subletting without consent
- non-user of premises for six months
- acquisition of alternate accommodation
- burden of proof on tenant to disprove grounds
- concurrent findings of fact not to be lightly interfered with under Article 227
