Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(C.S. Dharmadhikari J.)
JANBA DAULATRAO BORKAR - Petitioner
Versus
RAJESHKUMAR RAMJIWAN AGARWAL - Respondent
Advocates appeared
For petitioner - M.S. Chaudhari.
For respondent - W.G. Somalwar.
RENT CONTROL - C. P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 13 (3) (VI) - BONA FIDE NEED - INTERPRETATION - LANDLORD'S NEED FOR PREMISES - REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE AND GENUINE NEED - CONSIDERATION OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES - DUTY OF RENT CONTROLLER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY - SCOPE OF APPEAL - NECESSITY FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONED FINDINGS - FAILURE TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE AND MAKE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS - VITIATION OF ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord applied for permission to evict tenant under clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order, claiming bona fide need for occupation of premises for cloth business and residence. Tenant resisted the application, alleging that the landlord's need was not genuine and that he had previously attempted to enhance rent. The Rent Controller allowed the landlord's application, finding that his need was genuine. The appellate authority upheld the Rent Controller's order, relying on his findings and observations without independently considering the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority were vitiated due to their failure to properly consider the evidence and make independent findings. The Court emphasized the need for a reasonable and genuine need on the part of the landlord, and the duty of the Rent Controller and appellate authority to objectively consider all relevant factors in determining the bona fides of the landlord's claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had a reasonable and genuine need for the premises for bona fide occupation. 2. Whether the Rent Controller and appellate authority properly considered the evidence and made independent findings in determining the landlord's need.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the landlord's need for the premises must be reasonable and bona fide, and that mere wish, convenience, or whim of the landlord is not sufficient to establish a bona fide need. The Court further held that the Rent Controller and appellate authority must objectively consider all relevant factors, including the landlord's circumstances, the condition of the premises, and the possibility of alternative accommodation, in determining the genuineness of the landlord's claim. 2. The Court held that the Rent Controller and appellate authority failed to properly consider the evidence and make independent findings in determining the landlord's need. The Court noted that the appellate authority had merely relied on the findings of the Rent Controller without independently evaluating the evidence, and that both authorities had failed to consider the evidence presented by the tenant.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity to amend their pleadings, produce documents, and adduce evidence.
2. This application was resisted by the petitioner tenant. He contended that the applicant's father was not doing any cloth business at any time and the application filed is not bona fide. He further contended that in fact one of the blocks had fallen vacant. In that block the applicant’s father started a shop of selling steel trunks. He closed the business after some time and let out the block at higher rent. He further contended that the application has been filed by the landlord because the petitioner-tenant refused to pay enhanced rent. According to him, the applicant or his father did not require the premises bona fide and they have no intention to start any business. He also denied that the applicant is living in a rented house.
3. Before the Rent Controller the father of the landlord was examined. On the other hand, the tenant examined himself and one Saifuddin in support of his case. The petitioner-tenant had also filed an application for examining additional witness. Such an application was filed on 5-4-1971, but the same was rejected by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned Rent Controller, the application was not well founded and was filed at a late stage. The learned Rent Controller further observed that there is sufficient provision in the Rent Control Order for an action against such landlords who would misuse the permission granted to them under clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order. He further observed that he will inspect the spot. Thereafter it seems that the spot was inspected and arguments were heard and ultimately by an order dated 14-4-1971 the Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the landlord.
4. Being aggrieved by this order the tenant filed an appeal which was heard and decided by the Additional District Magistrate with appellate Rent Control Powers, Nagpur. It seems from the record that at the appellate stage the petitioner tenant filed certain documents, which included an application filed on behalf of the applicant-minor by his guardian for permission to transfer the minor's interest in the property. He also filed an affidavit sworn by Ramjivan Chiranjilal, the father of the applicant dated 17-10-1970 and 29-3-1971. He further filed an affidavit sworn by Kasturibai the mother of the landlord who was acting as a guardian in the said proceedings. The petitioner-tenant had filed these documents to show that the applicant's father, namely, Ramjivan, was an old man and was not keeping a good health. He further wanted to show from these documents that the financial position of the father of the landlord was not good and he was almost incapacitated to do any business. It seems from the record that he had also filed a copy of the order passed by the District Judge granting permission.
5. The appellate Court referred to the argument advanced before him by the counsel for the parties. He had also made a reference to the documents filed by the tenant at the appellate stage and ultimately came to the conclusion that the permission which was sought from the District Judge to sell the minor's property related to selling only a portion of the house and not the entire building. He further observed that the Rent Controller has considered in detail the need of the landlord and his order is well reaso
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
