9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the structure constructed by the tenant amounted to a permanent structure leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy. 2. Scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on questions of facts found by the appellate bench of Small Causes Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Permanent Structure Leading to Forfeiture of Tenancy: The case revolves around whether the tenant's constructions in the leased premises were permanent structures, violating the terms of the lease and leading to forfeiture of tenancy. The landlords alleged that the tenant had erected unauthorized constructions, including lofts, rooms, and new flooring, without their consent, violating Section 108(p) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial court and the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court found these structures to be permanent, substantial, and durable, intended for long-term use. They held that these constructions breached the terms of the tenancy, justifying eviction. The High Court, however, reversed these findings, considering the structures temporary and removable without significant damage, thus not warranting forfeiture of tenancy. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227: The main question was whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court's power under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or law, not re-evaluating facts unless the findings are perverse or patently unreasonable. The Supreme Court found that the trial court and the appellate bench had applied the correct legal principles and considered all relevant evidence. Therefore, the High Court's interference was unwarranted as the lower courts' findings were plausible and not perverse. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the order of the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes, which had ordered eviction and mesne profits. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the appeals. The judgment emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 and upheld the findings of the lower courts regarding the permanent nature of the tenant's constructions.
|
