9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ety of grounds to have a decree for eviction, but what ultimately survived among them was the ground envisaged in Section 13 (1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), i.e., bona fide and reasonable requirement of the tenanted premises for her own occupation. though, she was not suited by the trial court (which is the Small Causes Court, Bombay), she went in appeal to the appealable bench of the Court of Small causes, where she got a decree for eviction on the ground mentioned above. But the said decree did not enure to her benefit as the same was later upset by the High court of Bombay when the tenant filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by the fact-finding authority upon the evidence on record. it would have been well for the High court to remind itself that it was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 which obliges the High Court to confine to the Scrutiny of records and proceedings of the lower tribunal. By relying on fresh materials which were not before the tribunal, the High Court should not have disturbed findings of facts in exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction. it is now well high settled that power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to upset conclusions of facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. it cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and appreciating it. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by the Court on subsequent occasions also (vide M/s. India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M.A. Baker anr, AIR 1978 SC 45; Sukhbir Narain vs. Deputy director of Consolidation, AIR 1987 SC 1645). For appreciating the arguments or both sides, we have to take a look at the provision under which the landlady claimed eviction. The material portion of Section 13(1)(g) of the Act is the following: 13. When landlord may recover possession:- (1) Notwithstanding anyt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) the hardship of the tenant in case of eviction should not be more than the hardship of the landlord if he fails to get the eviction order. Whether the requirement is reasonable or not can only be judged from the facts since no strait-jacket formula can be evolved for it. it is difficult to give an exact definition of the word 'reasonable'. It is often said that an attempt to give a specific meaning to the word `reasonable' is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space. The author of 'Words and Phrases' [Permanent Edition] has quoted from In re Nice Schreiber, 123 F. 987,988 to give a plausible meaning for the said word. He says the expression 'reasonable ' is a relative term, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wife and a child, and the youngest son Nereus Drego); (3) the eldest son Giles Drego is staying in another flat with his wife and children; (4) the tenant is in occupation of yet another flat situate in the same locality which, on his own admission, is kitchen plus three -room flat. In the light of the above admitted factual position when the landlady says that the she needs more accommodation for her family, there is no scope for doubting the reasonableness of the requirement. Further the above circumstances would raise a presumption that the requirement is bona fide also. The tenant has failed to show that the demand for eviction was made with any oblique motive and in the absence of any such evidence the presumption of bona f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence. That they would become entitled to it in future or even further that they could have got it and have not attempted to get it would not by itself vitiate the case of the requirement set up by the landlady. Here, quite plainly speaking the case of the requirement set up by the landlady. Her, quite plainly speaking the case appears to be that the landlady is put up in a flat belonging to her husband and that flat falls short of the requirement and therefore, there is a need for additional accommodation. We do not find any thing unreasonable or male fide in t he case tried to be set up by the landlady. The other ground highlighted by the learned single judge for upsetting the decree of eviction is that the landlady did not specify t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
