Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a Civil Revision Application filed by the applicants (original defendants/tenants) challenging the judgment and order dated 06-12-2016 passed by the District Judge-12, Nagpur, dismissing their appeal under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and confirming the decree of eviction passed by the trial court in favour of the respondents (original plaintiffs/landlords). The suit property is plot no.59, Khare Town, North Ambazari Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur, admeasuring 18755 sq.ft. with structures. The applicant no.1 entered into possession under a rent note dated 25-06-1972 executed by the erstwhile landlord. The respondents purchased the suit property on 23-06-1992, and their vendor issued a notice of attornment dated 19-10-1992, whereby the tenancy stood attorned in favour of the respondents. In 1992, the respondents filed an application under Section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, for fixation of fair rent. Thereafter, on 25-03-1998, the respondents issued a notice to the applicants calling upon them to vacate, stating that the tenancy stood forfeited due to allegations made by the applicants in reply to the attornment notice. On 30-11-2003, the respondents issued a notice under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, claiming arrears of rent for 11 years and 5 months (137 months). The trial court decreed eviction, and the appellate court confirmed. The High Court, in revision, held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding arrears of rent and forfeiture of tenancy were based on evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. The court noted that the applicants had not challenged the attornment and had not paid rent for a long period. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Attornment of Tenancy - Notice of Attornment - The respondents purchased the suit property on 23-06-1992 and their vendor issued a notice of attornment dated 19-10-1992, whereby the tenancy stood attorned in favour of the respondents. The applicants did not challenge the attornment. (Paras 2-3) B) Rent Control - Forfeiture of Tenancy - Denial of Title - The respondents issued a notice on 25-03-1998 calling upon the applicants to vacate, stating that the tenancy stood forfeited due to allegations made by the applicants in reply to the attornment notice. The court below held that the tenancy was validly forfeited. (Para 3) C) Rent Control - Arrears of Rent - Notice under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The respondents issued a notice on 30-11-2003 claiming arrears of rent for 137 months. The courts below found that the applicants were in arrears and liable to pay. (Para 3) D) Civil Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference under Section 115 CPC - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The applicants failed to demonstrate any such error. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding arrears of rent and forfeiture of tenancy warrant interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy attornment
- Forfeiture of tenancy
- Arrears of rent
- Notice under Section 15 and 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC
