Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sou. Bhamabai, wife of Ananda Raut, was defendant no.3 in a suit for eviction filed by the landlords (respondent nos.1 and 2) against the original tenant (respondent no.3) and others. The suit premises was a room let out to defendant no.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.75 plus Rs.10 light charges. The landlords alleged that defendant no.1 committed willful default in payment of rent from 1 September 1985 to 31 August 1988, sublet the premises to defendant no.2 and his wife (the petitioner) without consent, and that the landlords required the premises bonafide for expanding their stationary business. A notice of termination was sent on 16 September 1981, which was replied by defendant no.1 admitting the arrears and stating that he allowed defendant no.2 and his wife to reside but not as sub-tenants. The trial court decreed the suit on all grounds, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, claiming to be a tenant by occupation, challenged the concurrent findings under Article 227. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and that the scope of Article 227 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Willful Default - Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The tenant committed willful default in payment of rent from 1 September 1985 to 31 August 1988, despite notice. The courts below held that the default was willful and not due to any bonafide reasons. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the tenant failed to prove payment or bonafide denial of title. (Paras 1-10)
B) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 15 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The tenant sublet the suit premises to defendant no.2 and his wife (defendant no.3) without the landlord's consent. The tenant admitted in his reply that he allowed them to reside but claimed they were not sub-tenants. The courts below held that the tenant had parted with possession, constituting subletting. The High Court affirmed, finding no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 11-15)
C) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlords required the suit premises bonafide for expanding their stationary business. The courts below accepted the landlords' need as reasonable and bonafide. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the landlords' need was genuine and the tenant failed to show any alternative accommodation. (Paras 16-20)
D) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court on willful default, subletting, and bonafide requirement of the landlord can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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.
Law Points
- Willful default in payment of rent
- Subletting without consent
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered under Article 227
- Scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 117
WRIT PETITION NO.1173 OF 1996
Mr.V.A.Desai i/b. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, for Petitioner. Mr.R.R.Shinde i/b Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, for the Respondents.
Sou. Bhamabai Wife of Ananda Raut
Sudhir @ Dnyandeo Purushottam Petkar, Ananda Purushottam Petkar, Vasant Dattatraya Potdar, Ananda Keraba Raut
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (defendant no.3) sought to set aside the judgment and order of the appellate court dismissing her appeal against the decree of eviction.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the suit premises by occupation and challenged the eviction decree on grounds of willful default, subletting, and bonafide requirement.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur) decreed the suit on 31 January 1992 in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1989. The appellate court (2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur) dismissed the appeal on 20 September 1995.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court on willful default, subletting, and bonafide requirement can be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that she was a tenant by occupation and that the findings of the courts below were perverse and not based on evidence.
The respondents argued that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and that the scope of Article 227 is limited.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court on willful default, subletting, and bonafide requirement were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant (Defendant No.3) challenges the judgment and order dated 20 September 1995 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur whereby the petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31 January 1992 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1989 has been dismissed.
The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint was that from 1 February 1989, defendant no.1 was inducted as monthly tenant in the suit room on a rent of Rs.75/- per month.
Defendant No.1 had committed willful default in payment of rent from 1 September 1985 till 31 August 1988 which amounted to Rs.2700/- and Rs.360/- towards light charges as arrears of rent.
Procedural History
The landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1989 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur, seeking eviction of the tenant on grounds of willful default, subletting, and bonafide requirement. The trial court decreed the suit on 31 January 1992. The tenant (defendant no.3) appealed to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, who dismissed the appeal on 20 September 1995. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 28 November 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 13(1)(g), Section 15
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 108
