KAILASBHAI SHUKARAM TIWARI Vs. JOSTNA LAXMIDAS PUJARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave impugns the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2001, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed in writ petition No.306 of 1990. The aforesaid writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed at the instance of the tenant-respondent No.1 herein against the order dated September 14, 1989, of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No.186/1987, affirming the judgment and order of the Joint Civil Judge, Kalyan dated 10th March, 1987 in RCS No.137/1982. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court recording concurrent findings of fact allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord-appellant, holding that the landlord had made out a case for eviction of the tenant under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (for short the Act). The respondent No.1 before us is the tenant while the respondent No.2 is the person to whom the premises is alleged to have been sub-let. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution set aside the concurrent findings of fact, and dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the appellant-landlord.

(2.) Before adverting to the issues that arise for our consideration in this appeal, we may briefly notice the factual background in which the controversy arose. Shorn of unnecessary details, it may be noticed that the premises in question, located at Kalyan, is an apartment measuring about 375 sq. feet. The case of the appellant is that the said premises was let out to respondent No.1 herein sometime in the year 1975 and she was residing in the premises along with her husband. The agreed rent was Rs.92 per month. According to the landlord, the tenant-respondent No.1shifted to another premises in Borivili in the year 1981. However, respondent No.2 continued in the premises as a sub-tenant. According to the appellant, this amounted to sub-letting of the premises to respondent No.2. Some other grounds were also raised in the eviction petition, such as default in payment of rent etc. but we are not concerned with those grounds since the findings on those grounds is in favour of the tenant-respondent No.1.

(3.) The plea of the tenant-respondent No.1 was that she was residing in the premises since 1975 and respondent No.2, who happened to be the son of the brother of the father of her husband, came to reside with them in the same premises since he was a member of their family. In the written statement it was denied that the tenant-respondent No.1 along with her husband had shifted to another premises at Borivili. It was also denied that the premises had been sub-let to respondent No.2. It was stated in the written statement that her husband was carrying on business at Kalyan and therefore needed the suit premises. It was also denied that tenant-respondent No.1 had ever received any notice from the landlord.