Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the defendants in the original eviction suit, filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an order dated 7th August, 2025 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 596 of 2017. That revision had been filed against a judgment and decree of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, in Appeal No. 474 of 2008, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit and decreed eviction against the tenants. The suit premises were located on the second floor of Guzdar House, Mumbai, and were let to Defendant No. 1 firm. The landlord (Respondent No. 1) had instituted the suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 on multiple grounds, including unlawful subletting and non-user of the premises. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate Bench reversed, finding that Defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the premises to Defendant No. 3 and later to Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 and others, and that the tenant had not used the premises for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months prior to the suit without reasonable cause. The Appellate Bench also found that the defendants committed acts contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the civil revision, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Appellate Bench's decree. The petitioners then sought review, arguing that the revision order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the review petition, holding that the grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the main revision and that a review is not an appeal in disguise. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The petitioners sought review of an order dismissing their civil revision against an eviction decree. The court held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised were already considered and rejected in the main revision. (Paras 1-5) B) Rent Control - Unlawful Subletting - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The Appellate Bench found that the tenant had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to multiple persons. The High Court in revision found no reason to interfere with this finding of fact. (Paras 3-5) C) Rent Control - Non-User of Premises - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The Appellate Bench held that the tenant had not used the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause. The High Court upheld this finding. (Paras 3-5) D) Transfer of Property Act - Duty of Lessee - Section 108(o) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The Appellate Bench found that the defendants committed acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits a lessee from using the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 7th August, 2025 in Civil Revision Application No. 596 of 2017 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Review Petition No. 5 of 2025 is dismissed. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 7th August, 2025 in Civil Revision Application No. 596 of 2017.
Law Points
- Review petition
- error apparent on face of record
- unlawful subletting
- non-user of premises
- Bombay Rent Act
- Transfer of Property Act
- Section 108(o)
- Section 13(1)(a)
- Section 13(1)(e)
