2009 (10) TMI 999 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Subletting of the premises.
2. Change of user of the premises.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Subletting of the Premises:

The landlord filed an application for eviction on April 6, 1979, alleging that the tenant had sublet the premises to Mandovi Tours and Travels without permission, thus violating the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Act, 1968). The tenant denied subletting, claiming that he formed a partnership with his son, daughter-in-law, and Kunda Wagh to start a travel business due to his old age. The Additional Rent Controller found that the partnership was not genuine and was a cover for subletting. The Administrative Tribunal upheld this finding, noting the lack of evidence for the partnership's genuineness, such as the absence of books of accounts and bank accounts. The High Court, however, set aside these findings, leading to the present appeal.

2. Change of User of the Premises:

The landlord also alleged a change of user, claiming that the premises initially rented for a grocery business were now being used for a travel business. The tenant admitted to this change but argued it was within his rights as he retained possession and control over the premises. The Additional Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal found that the tenant had indeed changed the use of the premises, which was another ground for eviction.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:

The High Court allowed the writ petition under Article 227, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Additional Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its judgment by being too technical in its interpretation of the pleadings and evidence. The High Court failed to consider whether the partnership was genuine or a camouflage for subletting. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and it should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear misdirection in law or fact.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the eviction order based on subletting and change of user. The Court emphasized that the landlord's pleadings and evidence were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of subletting, shifting the burden of proof to the tenant, who failed to rebut it. The Court also reiterated the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227, which should be exercised sparingly and not as an appellate authority. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.