Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the defendant-tenant (Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya) challenging the eviction decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay. The plaintiffs (Manohar Vithoba Kuntha, since deceased through legal heirs) are the owners and landlords of Building No.4 situated on plot CTS No.425, 12th lane, Kamathipura, Nagpada, Mumbai. Defendant No.1 was the monthly tenant of Shop No.1 (suit premises) at a rent of Rs.400/-. The plaintiffs instituted R.A.E. Suit No.253/426 of 2011 seeking recovery of possession on grounds of unauthorised subletting, non-user, and bonafide requirement. During the suit, the plaintiffs did not press the grounds of non-user and subletting, and the suit proceeded solely on the ground of bonafide requirement. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 6 October 2017, directing the defendants to hand over possession and conduct enquiry into mesne profits. The defendant No.2 (revision applicant) filed Appeal No.376/2017 before the Appellate Bench, which was dismissed on 8 October 2021. Hence, the revision application under Section 115 CPC. The revision applicant argued that the plaintiffs' daughter-in-law, for whose business the premises were required, admitted that the plaintiff no longer resides in the suit building and that Room No.3 in the same building is vacant and has a commercial electricity connection, thus alternate premises are available. The respondents contended that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord, and that Section 30 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act prohibits conversion of residential premises to commercial use. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide requirement and comparative hardship are based on evidence and do not warrant interference in revision. The Court noted that the landlord's need for commercial premises for his daughter-in-law's business is bonafide, and the tenant failed to prove availability of suitable alternate commercial premises. The revision application was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Landlord's Need - The landlord sought eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide requirement for his daughter-in-law's business. The tenant contended that the landlord had alternate premises (Room No.3) which could be used. The Court held that the landlord cannot be compelled to use residential premises for commercial purposes, and the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding which premises the landlord should use. (Paras 3-5, 7-8) B) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - Burden on Tenant - The tenant failed to prove that greater hardship would be caused to him than to the landlord if eviction decree is passed. The concurrent findings of the courts below on comparative hardship were upheld. (Para 8) C) Rent Control - Conversion of Residential to Commercial - Section 30 Maharashtra Rent Control Act - The Court noted that Section 30 prohibits conversion of residential premises for commercial use without permission. The tenant's argument that the landlord could use Room No.3 (residential) for commercial purposes was rejected as it would violate the Act. (Paras 5-7) D) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - The Court held that in revision, interference is warranted only if there is a jurisdictional error or perversity in findings. The concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be re-appreciated in revision. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Bench regarding bonafide requirement of the landlord and comparative hardship warrant interference in revision under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The eviction decree dated 6 October 2017 passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Bench on 8 October 2021 is upheld.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- comparative hardship
- availability of alternate premises
- conversion of residential premises to commercial use
- Section 30 Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
