Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two civil appeals arising from a landlord-tenant dispute over eviction. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in 1986 and sought eviction of the defendants (tenants and alleged subtenants) on grounds of default in payment of rent and non-user of the premises for the purpose for which it was let out. The trial court decreed eviction, which was upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court, hearing the appeals, examined the concurrent findings of fact. It noted that the defendants had admitted non-payment of rent since 1959 and failed to respond to the plaintiff's notice demanding rent. The court also found that the premises, originally leased for storage of cotton, were not being used for that purpose, as admitted by the defendant himself. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings did not suffer from any perversity or error of law and declined to interfere under Article 136. The appeals were dismissed, and the eviction decree was upheld. The court also dismissed the appeal against the order in execution proceedings, as it was consequential to the main decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Section 12, Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 - The plaintiff purchased the suit property and sought eviction of the tenant-defendants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently found that the defendants failed to pay rent despite notice and were wilful defaulters. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, holding that the concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any perversity or error of law warranting interference (Paras 6-7, 10-11).
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-User of Premises - Section 13(1)(k), Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 - The plaintiff also sought eviction on the ground that the defendants had not used the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let out (storage of cotton) for more than six months without reasonable cause. The courts below found that the premises were not being used for storage of cotton but for storing agricultural equipment and cement, and that the business of cotton ginning was closed. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the defendants' own admission established non-user for the stated purpose (Paras 8, 10-11).
C) Limitation - Suit for Eviction - Article 67, Limitation Act, 1963 - The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation as the lease had expired in 1959 and the suit was filed in 1989. The courts below rejected this contention, holding that the defendants continued as statutory tenants under the Rent Act and the suit for eviction was within time as the cause of action arose on the date of notice of attornment and demand for rent. The Supreme Court affirmed this view (Paras 6, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding default in payment of rent and non-user of the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let out, warrant interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals, upholding the concurrent judgments of the courts below. The eviction decree against the defendants was confirmed, and the appeal against the order in execution proceedings was also dismissed as consequential.
Law Points
- Statutory tenancy under Bombay Rent Act
- Eviction on ground of default in payment of rent
- Eviction on ground of non-user of premises for purpose let
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with by Supreme Court
- Limitation for suit for eviction
- Attornment of tenancy by purchaser of property
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (11) 86
Civil Appeal No. 9834 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No. 8450 of 2019
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior advocate for appellants in C.A. No.9834/2016; Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior advocate for appellants in C.A. No.8450/2019; Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned counsel for respondent
Rameshchandra Daulal Soni & Anr. (in C.A. No.9834/2016); Legal representatives of original defendant No.5 (in C.A. No.8450/2019)
Devichand Hiralal Gandhi (Dead) Thr. LRs. Smt. Gulabbai Devichand Gandhi & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against concurrent judgments of eviction in a landlord-tenant dispute under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (defendants) sought to set aside the eviction decree and the order in execution proceedings.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial court, appellate court, and High Court ordering their eviction from the suit property on grounds of default in payment of rent and non-user of premises.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed eviction on 13.10.1998; the appellate court dismissed the appeal on 18.02.2012; the High Court dismissed the revision application on 20.07.2015.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of default in payment of rent and non-user of premises warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Whether the suit for eviction was barred by limitation.
Whether the defendants No.3 to 7 were subtenants or trespassers.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants (defendants No.1 and 2) contended that the suit was barred by limitation as the lease expired in 1959 and the suit was filed in 1989.
Appellants argued that they were not informed about the purchase by the plaintiff and that the notice of attornment was not valid.
Respondent (plaintiff) contended that the defendants were wilful defaulters and had not used the premises for the purpose for which it was let out.
Respondent argued that the defendants continued as statutory tenants under the Rent Act and the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact on issues of default in payment of rent and non-user of premises, based on evidence and not perverse, cannot be interfered with under Article 136. The defendants' own admission of non-payment of rent since 1959 and non-user of premises for the stated purpose justified eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 13.10.1998 decreed the suit and directed the defendants No.1 to 7 to handover actual physical possession of the suit property and also to pay the amount of Rs.162/.
The fact that the lease was for 31 years was established and the Trial Court in that regard had also taken into consideration that the lease had come to an end by efflux of time as contemplated under Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Insofar as the defendants No.3 to 7 though the plaintiffs had contended that they are the subtenants under the defendants No.1 and 2, in the absence of there being plausible evidence relating to subletting, the Trial Court rejected the contention and held them to be the trespassers liable to be evicted.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.253/1989 for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit on 13.10.1998. The defendants No.1 and 2 appealed to the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.315/1998, which was dismissed on 18.02.2012. The defendants then filed Civil Revision Application No.112/2012 before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which was dismissed on 20.07.2015. The defendants No.1 and 2 appealed to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9834/2016. The legal representatives of defendant No.5 appealed against the order in execution proceedings in Civil Appeal No.8450/2019.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947: Section 5(11), Section 12, Section 13(1)(k)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 111
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 67
