Case Note & Summary
The case involved a revision application filed by a tenant against an eviction decree passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The landlords sought eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and cessation of use of the tenanted premises. The trial court dismissed the suit concerning non-payment and possession of suitable accommodation but upheld the eviction on the ground of non-user. The tenant appealed, challenging the concurrent findings of fact. The High Court noted that the tenant needed to demonstrate that the lower courts' findings were perverse or based on no evidence to succeed in the revision. The tenant's arguments included claims of remaining in the tenanted premises for proximity to his office, which the court found unconvincing. The court emphasized that the tenant's explanations were inconsistent and lacked credibility. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, concluding that the tenant had indeed ceased to use the tenanted premises, and dismissed the revision application, discharging the rule with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Grounds of Non-User - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - The courts below found that the tenant ceased to use the tenanted premises for over six months prior to the suit, based on evidence that the tenant's family moved to a newly constructed bungalow. The High Court upheld these findings, stating that the tenant failed to prove any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Held that the concurrent findings do not warrant interference (Paras 26-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded against the tenant by the trial court and appellate court warrant interference under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenant's cessation of use of the tenanted premises. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction
- concurrent findings of fact
- non-payment of rent
- cessation of use of premises
- interpretation of evidence
