9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the eviction of a tenant by a landlady based on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the tenanted premises for her own occupation under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Summary: The landlady rented out her flat in Bombay to a tenant in 1969 but later sought eviction in 1977 due to the need for additional accommodation for her large family. The trial court initially ruled against her, citing scanty pleadings, but the appeal court granted the eviction decree. However, the High Court overturned this decision based on discrepancies in the landlady's evidence regarding her son's ownership of another flat and failure to specify the plinth area of her current residence. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overstepping its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by disturbing factual findings without fresh material. The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and cited precedents to support this principle. The Court analyzed the legal provisions under Section 13(1)(g) of the Act, emphasizing the requirements of reasonableness and bona fide nature of the landlord's need for eviction. The Court found the landlady's requirement for additional accommodation reasonable and bona fide based on the family's living conditions. It dismissed the High Court's focus on minor discrepancies and upheld the eviction decree, restoring it with a three-month surrender period for the tenant. The Court clarified that specifying the area of the premises was not a legal requirement for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) and faulted the High Court for overlooking the landlady's previous mention of the area. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the eviction decree, with a provision for the tenant to surrender the premises within three months.
|
