Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the tenant, Messrs Auto Hirers & anr, against an eviction decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in T.E.& R.Suit No.64/76/2004, which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court. The respondent-landlord, Commerce Centre Cooperative Society Ltd, had let out a triangular plot of land to the applicant-tenant by an agreement dated 28 March 1986. Prior to the eviction suit, the tenant had filed RAD Suit No.1994/1990 seeking a declaration of tenancy, which was decreed on 21 January 2003, declaring the tenant as a protected tenant under the Bombay Rent Act. Subsequently, the landlord filed the eviction suit on the ground of non-payment of rent. The trial court decreed eviction on 6 October 2006, and the appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal on 20 April 2015, confirming the eviction. The tenant then filed the present revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below on the issue of default in payment of rent were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. The court noted that the tenant had failed to pay rent as per consent terms and had committed default. The revisional court's scope is limited to examining whether the subordinate court exercised its jurisdiction properly or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The court found no such error and dismissed the revision application, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Section 15 Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Default in Payment - Tenant failed to pay rent as per consent terms and committed default - Both courts below concurrently found tenant in arrears - Held that revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below on the issue of default in payment of rent and the consequent eviction decree warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
Civil Revision Application No.358 of 2015 is dismissed. The concurrent eviction decree is upheld.
Law Points
- Eviction for non-payment of rent
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 Section 15
- Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
