Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop premises in Nashik, was sued by the respondent landlady for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was filed in 1986 on two grounds: first, that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent from 1984 to June 1986; second, that the tenant had constructed an illegal shed in the open space without the landlady's consent. The tenant denied both allegations, claiming that the shed was pre-existing and that rent was not in arrears. The trial court decreed eviction on both grounds, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of the courts below and found that the tenant had failed to prove payment of rent or that the construction was pre-existing. The court held that the findings were based on evidence and were not perverse, and therefore no interference was warranted under Article 227. The petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Rent Default - Section 13 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlady sought eviction on ground of arrears of rent from 1984 to June 1986 - Tenant denied default but failed to prove payment - Courts below held that tenant was in arrears and not entitled to protection - Held that concurrent findings of fact on rent default are not perverse and do not warrant interference under Article 227 (Paras 1-10).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Unauthorized Construction - Section 13 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlady alleged tenant constructed a shed with iron poles and mesh without consent - Tenant claimed shed was pre-existing and necessary for protection - Courts below found that tenant failed to prove pre-existence and that construction was unauthorized - Held that concurrent findings on unauthorized construction are based on evidence and not liable to be set aside (Paras 1-10).
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - Petitioner challenged eviction decree in writ petition - Court held that under Article 227, High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction - Held that no such perversity exists in the present case (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on grounds of rent default and unauthorized construction under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below and confirming the eviction decree.
Law Points
- Eviction decree
- Rent default
- Unauthorized construction
- Concurrent findings
- Bombay Rent Act Section 13
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- Limited scope of interference
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 91
Writ Petition NO. 4467 OF 1996
Mr.S.P.Kanuga i/b. Ms.Sapna Nath, for the Petitioners, Mr.Akshay Chikhale i/b. Mr.P.B.Shah, for the Respondent.
Shri. Parashram @ Purshottam Jethanand Thakur (since Deceased) By His LH & LRs.) 1A. Tulsidas P.Thakur. 1B Vishindas P.Thakur 1C.Harish P.Thakur 1D. Gopal P.Thakur 1E. Laxmi C.Adnani.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging concurrent eviction decrees passed by the trial court and appellate court in a suit for ejectment and possession.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside the eviction decree and dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below ordering eviction on grounds of rent default and unauthorized construction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik) decreed eviction on 7 December 1990 in Regular Civil Suit No.589 of 1986. The appellate court (Second Extra Joint District Judge, Nashik) dismissed the appeal on 25 June 1996.
Issues
Whether the tenant defaulted in payment of rent from 1984 to June 1986?
Whether the tenant constructed an unauthorized shed in the open space without the landlady's consent?
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse and warrant interference under Article 227?
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent (landlady) argued that the tenant had not paid rent from 1984 to June 1986 despite demands, and had constructed a shed with iron poles and mesh without consent.
The petitioner (tenant) argued that the shed was pre-existing before his tenancy and was necessary for protection from sun and rain, and that rent was not in arrears.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. In this case, the findings on rent default and unauthorized construction were based on evidence and were not perverse, hence no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner/original defendant who suffers an eviction decree dated 7 December 1990 in Regular Civil Suit No.589 of 1986 decided by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik as confirmed by the learned Second Extra Joint District Judge, Nashik, dismissing the petitioners appeal by the impugned judgment dated 25 June 1996, is before this Court in the present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the courts below.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.589 of 1986 for eviction. The trial court decreed eviction on 7 December 1990. The petitioner appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on 25 June 1996. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13
- Constitution of India: Article 227
