Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxmibai Ganpati Bhingare, was the tenant of an open plot admeasuring 30 sq.ft x 20 sq.ft in Sangli, owned by the respondent, Shivaji Dnyani Salunkhe, who purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 23.4.1979. The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.325 of 1979 seeking eviction of the tenant on three grounds: (i) the tenant encroached upon an additional 200 sq.ft of land by constructing temporary structures like a cattle shed and fodder storage, making her liable under Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act; (ii) the tenant changed the user of the premises from residential to commercial (milk and tailoring business) without consent, violating Section 13(1)(a); and (iii) the landlord required the premises bonafide for reconstruction. The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate court confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. During the pendency, the original tenant died and her legal heirs were substituted. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on encroachment and change of user were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the tenant had admitted to using the premises for business and had encroached on additional land. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Encroachment - Section 13(1)(c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974 - Tenant constructed temporary structures on additional land beyond the leased open plot - Held that such encroachment constitutes a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(c) as it amounts to unauthorized use of adjacent land (Paras 3-5). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Change of User - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974 - Tenant used the leased premises for milk and tailoring business instead of residential purpose - Held that change of user without landlord's consent is a valid ground for eviction (Paras 3-5). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 227 of the Constitution - High Court's supervisory jurisdiction - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Held that such findings cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court on grounds of encroachment and change of user under the Bombay Rent Act warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Eviction on ground of encroachment under Section 13(1)(c) of Bombay Rent Act
- Eviction on ground of change of user under Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rent Act
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with under Article 227
- Tenant's unauthorized construction on leased land amounts to encroachment
- Change of user from residential to commercial without consent is a ground for eviction
