Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a tenant of two shop blocks since 1977-1978, was sued for eviction by the respondent landlords for non-payment of rent from 01-08-1997 to 31-05-2000 at Rs. 800 per month. The landlords issued a notice on 17-05-2000 (Exhibit 55) and a subsequent notice on 12-06-2000 (Exhibit 56) terminating the tenancy on 30-09-2000. The tenant replied on 26-06-2000 (Exhibit 57). The trial court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, finding that the tenant failed to deposit arrears within one month of notice. The appellate court confirmed. The tenant filed a writ petition under Article 227. During pendency, the original tenant died and his legal representatives were substituted. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and noted that the tenant had not made valid deposit of arrears as required by law. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, and the findings were not perverse. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference was warranted under Article 227.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Non-Payment of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Concurrent Findings - The tenant challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the trial court and appellate court for arrears of rent from 01-08-1997 to 31-05-2000. The courts below found that the tenant failed to deposit arrears within the statutory period despite notice. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-10)
B) Rent Control - Deposit of Rent - Section 12(3)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Compliance - The tenant claimed to have deposited rent under Section 12(3)(b) but the courts below found that the deposit was not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The High Court upheld the finding that the tenant did not make valid deposit of arrears. (Paras 5-8)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity in findings of fact. Since the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below ordering eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the trial court and appellate court.
Law Points
- Eviction for non-payment of rent
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 12(3)(b) Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- Limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 94
Writ Petition No.279 of 2016
Shri A.V. Bhide for petitioners, Shri S.C. Bhalerao for respondents
Ataullahkhan s/o Mohammadkhan (dead) through legal heirs
Kernath Jaywantrao Nagargoje and Bhaskar Kernath Nagargoje
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent eviction orders passed by the trial court and appellate court in a suit for eviction filed by the landlords against the tenant.
Remedy Sought
The tenant (petitioner) sought to set aside the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the courts below.
Filing Reason
The tenant failed to pay rent from 01-08-1997 to 31-05-2000, leading to termination of tenancy and eviction suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the appellate court confirmed the decree.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below ordering eviction are perverse or suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Whether the tenant made valid deposit of arrears of rent within the statutory period under Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the courts below erred in ordering eviction and that the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent.
The respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the tenant failed to deposit arrears within the statutory period.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the courts below that the tenant failed to deposit arrears of rent within the statutory period under Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, were not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner (tenant) has challenged concurrent orders of eviction passed by the two Courts below on a suit for eviction filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs/landlords).
The facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioner entered into the suit premises being two shop blocks as a tenant since the year 1977-1978.
There was no dispute about the payment of rent by the petitioner till 01-08-1997. But, thereafter, the respondents claimed that the petitioner failed to make deposit of rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from 01-08-1997 to 31-05-2000.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for eviction against the tenant in the trial court, which decreed eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The tenant appealed to the appellate court, which confirmed the decree. The tenant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original tenant died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 12(3)(b)
- Constitution of India: 227
