Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ranjanwadi Shikshan Trust and others, as landlords, filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 18 of 1979) seeking eviction of the respondents, Govind N. Naidu (since deceased through L.Rs) and others, as tenants, from the suit premises under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai on 18th August 1989. The landlords appealed to the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara, who dismissed the appeal on 11th July 1994. Aggrieved, the landlords filed the present writ petition. The landlords pressed only two grounds for eviction: (a) acquisition of alternate suitable premises by the tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of the Act, and (b) reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlords under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the landlords failed to prove that the tenant had acquired suitable alternate premises or that the landlords' requirement was bona fide. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, holding that they were not perverse or based on no evidence. The petition was dismissed, and the civil applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Acquisition of Alternate Suitable Premises - Section 13(1)(l) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord sought eviction on ground that tenant acquired alternate suitable premises - Trial court and appellate court found that landlord failed to prove that the premises acquired by tenant were suitable and that tenant had shifted residence - Held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse (Paras 2-10).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(1)(g) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord claimed requirement of suit premises for own use - Courts below found that landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that landlord had other suitable accommodation - Held that landlord failed to discharge burden of proof (Paras 11-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners-landlords have made out a case for eviction of the respondents-tenants under Section 13(1)(l) (acquisition of alternate suitable premises) and Section 13(1)(g) (reasonable and bona fide requirement) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the civil applications, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court that the landlords failed to prove grounds for eviction under Sections 13(1)(l) and 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish grounds for eviction
- Acquisition of alternate suitable premises by tenant must be proved by landlord
- Bona fide and reasonable requirement of landlord must be genuine and not a pretext
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 107
WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 1995 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2274 OF 2017 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1351 OF 2017
Mr. Owen Menezes a/w. Mr. Ibrahim Merchant I/b I.Z. Merchant for the Petitioners, Mr. P.B. Shah a/w. Gunjan Shah for the Respondents
Ranjanwadi Shikshan Trust and ors.
Govind N. Naidu (since deceased through L.Rs 1A.Ashok G. Naidu and ors.) & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging concurrent judgments and decrees dismissing landlord's eviction suit under rent control legislation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (landlords) sought eviction of respondents (tenants) from suit premises.
Filing Reason
Landlords claimed that tenants had acquired alternate suitable premises and that landlords required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai) dismissed suit on 18th August 1989; Appeal Court (IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara) dismissed appeal on 11th July 1994.
Issues
Whether the respondents-tenants have acquired suitable alternate premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947?
Whether the petitioners-landlords have established their reasonable and bona fide requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the said Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that overwhelming material on record established that tenants acquired suitable alternate residential and commercial premises.
Respondents contended that the findings of fact by courts below were correct and not perverse, and no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
In a writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving that the tenant acquired suitable alternate premises or that the landlord's requirement was bona fide.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the judgments and decrees dated 18th August 1989 and 11th July 1994 made by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai (Trial Court) and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara (Appeal Court) dismissing the petitioners (landlords') Civil Suit No. 18 of 1979 seeking the eviction of the respondents (tenants) from the suit premises by resort to the provisions in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Said Act).
Mr. Menezes, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, made it clear that the petitioners– landlord now press for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises only on the following two grounds... (a) The acquisition of alternate suitable premises by respondent – tenant (section 13 (1) (l) of the said Act); (b) Reasonable and bona fide requirement of the petitioners– landlords (sec.13 (1) (g) of the said Act).
Procedural History
The landlords filed Civil Suit No. 18 of 1979 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai, which was dismissed on 18th August 1989. The landlords appealed to the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara, who dismissed the appeal on 11th July 1994. The landlords then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: 13(1)(l), 13(1)(g)
