SHRI RAMUGRAHA RAMCHARITA TIWARI v. ALAKNANDA GOPALKRISHNA BADALE THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS and OTHERS
Civil Revision: Locus Standi of Legal Heirs, Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction, and Consideration of Subsequent Events in Eviction Proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:52386
Decision Date: 01-12-2025
List of Laws
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Section 115); Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Law of Landlord and Tenant; Transfer of Property Act; Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Case Brief
- Facts: The original plaintiffs filed a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, and mesne profit from the original defendant, Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari, based on grounds of personal and bona fide requirement, erection of permanent structure without permission, and nuisance. The plaintiffs contended the defendant was a monthly tenant at Rs.155/-. The defendant denied making permanent constructions or causing nuisance. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, fixing standard rent at Rs.155/-.
- Procedural Posture: The plaintiffs appealed the Trial Court's decision. During the appeal, Plaintiff No. 1 died, and her legal heirs were brought on record. The Appeal Court initially dismissed the appeal, but this Court, in Writ Petition No. 858 of 2004, remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the issue of bona fide requirement. The Appeal Court then ordered eviction. The original defendant filed a writ petition, which was converted into a Civil Revision Application before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the original defendant died, and his legal heirs were brought on record. One of the legal heirs of the original landlord also expired. The present application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Appeal Court.
- Issue: Whether the High Court should interfere with the Appeal Court's decree of eviction, considering the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and whether the purported legal heirs of the original tenant have the locus standi to challenge the eviction decree, especially considering the issue of bona fide requirement and alleged suppression of available premises by the landlord.
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the eviction order passed by the Appeal Court.
- Reasoning: The Court held that its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is limited and it cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The Court found that the present Revision Applicants, claiming to be legal heirs, did not have the locus standi to challenge the eviction decree because they were not the legal heirs of the original tenant, Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari, but rather legal heirs of his Power of Attorney holder. The Court also found no evidence of suppression of available premises by the landlord. The Court considered the subsequent events, including the increase in the landlord's family size and the need for ground floor premises due to handicapped family members. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in Sheshambal (dead) through LRs. v/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 470] regarding the consideration of subsequent events in eviction proceedings. The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the applicants, including Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani Vs. Durgashankar G. Shroff & Ors. [2004(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 333] and P. V. Papanna and Ors. Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah [(1994) 2 SCC 316], finding them inapplicable to the facts of the present case.