TUKARAM MORABA JAUNJAL(DECD.) BY LH. and LR. and ORS. v. MANGALA BALKRISHNA PATWARDHAN AND ORS.
Discusses interpretation of eviction laws, burden of proof, and High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:28254
Decision Date: 10-07-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 227 of the Constitution of India, concerning the High Court's power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The petition was filed under this article, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the lower court's judgment. The court notes that its jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and cannot be used to correct mere errors of fact by re-examining evidence. The court's role is limited to ensuring that subordinate courts and tribunals act within their authority. The judgment emphasizes that the High Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal under Article 227.
- The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: The judgment extensively discusses Section 13 of the Act, particularly Section 13(1)(k), which deals with the grounds for eviction of a tenant based on non-user of the premises. Section 13 begins with a non-obstante clause, aiming to prevent unreasonable eviction. Section 13(1) incorporates statutory grounds for eviction, entitling the landlord to recover possession if specific grounds are met. Section 13(1)(k) specifically addresses the cesser of user of the premises for the purpose for which it was let out. The court outlines the ingredients required to obtain a decree of eviction under Section 13(1)(k): (a) non-user of the premises for the purpose for which it was let out; (b) for a continuous period of six months prior to the date of the suit; and (c) non-user should be without reasonable cause. The judgment refers to previous cases interpreting similar provisions, emphasizing the need for pleading and proving continuous non-user for six months immediately preceding the suit and the absence of reasonable cause. The court distinguishes the present case from previous judgments where the pleading of these elements was absent.
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: The judgment refers to Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, stating that it is pari materia with Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 16(1)(n) in Nilesh Laxmichand's case is cited, emphasizing that the following elements must be established for eviction: the premises must have been let out for a particular purpose; there must be non-user by the tenant for that purpose; the non-user must be without reasonable cause; and the non-user must be for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit.
🔒 For Members Only