High Court of Gujarat Disposes Civil Revision Application with Time Granted to Tenants. The court found the appellate court's findings of fact were not patently opposed to evidence, thus no interference was warranted under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved a civil revision application filed by original defendants-tenants against a decree of eviction passed by the appellate court under the Bombay Rent Act. The landlords had initially filed a suit seeking possession of the premises, claiming a reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use, which was dismissed by the trial court. The landlords appealed under section 29(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, granting eviction. The tenants subsequently filed a revision application under section 29(2) of the Act, challenging the appellate court's findings. The court considered the submissions of both parties and referenced the Supreme Court decision in Helper Girdharbhai, emphasizing that mere alternative views on evidence do not justify interference with factual findings unless they are patently opposed to the evidence. The court found the tenants' request for time to vacate reasonable and granted them until 18th July 1998, contingent upon filing an undertaking. The revision was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the interim stay was vacated.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Eviction - Grounds for Eviction - Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Section 29(1) - Landlords sought eviction on the grounds of personal requirement, but the trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court allowed the appeal, leading to a revision application by the tenants, which the court found did not warrant interference as the findings were not patently opposed to evidence (Paras 1-4).

B) Eviction - Time to Vacate - Reasonable Time Granted - The court granted tenants time until 18th July 1998 to vacate the premises, considering the request reasonable and unopposed by the landlords (Paras 5-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellate court's findings of fact warrant interference under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court disposed of the revision application, granting tenants until 18th July 1998 to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking.

Law Points

  • Eviction
  • Rent Control
  • Reasonable Requirement
  • Findings of Fact
  • Supreme Court Precedent
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Civil Revision Application No. 708 of 1982

1996-01-18

Y.B. Bhatt

S.N. Shelat, B.J. Shelat

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision application regarding eviction of tenants.

Remedy Sought

Tenants sought to challenge the appellate court's eviction decree.

Filing Reason

Landlords required the premises for personal use.

Previous Decisions

Trial court dismissed the landlords' suit, which was reversed by the appellate court.

Issues

Whether the appellate court's findings of fact warrant interference Whether the tenants should be granted time to vacate

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued against the appellate court's findings Respondents did not contest the request for time to vacate

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld that findings of fact by the appellate court should not be interfered with unless they are patently opposed to the evidence on record.

Judgment Excerpts

The landlords had filed a suit against the defendants for a decree of possession of the suit premises on the ground inter alia that they required the premises reasonably and bonafide for their personal requirement. Accordingly the petitioners-original tenants are granted time upto 18th July 1998 to vacate the suit premises.

Procedural History

The trial court dismissed the landlords' suit, leading to an appeal under section 29(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, which was allowed by the appellate court, resulting in the present revision application.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Rent Act: 29(1), 29(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Municipal Corporation's Revision Against Refund of Octroi on Replacement Engine. Replacement of defective part under warranty not a fresh import liable to octroi under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Indu...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Liability Under Income Tax Act for Buy-Back Tax — Clarifies Appellate Remedy Availability.