NARAYAN RAJARAM POTE Vs. SHRIPAL TALAKCHAND DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 13.7.1983 passed by the Assistant Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No.258/1980. That appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.2.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malsiras, in Civil Suit No.120/1972. That civil suit was filed by the petitioners claiming therein that they are owners of the house standing on C.S.No.1313 of Akluj and that defendant No.2 Hirachand (respondent No.2 in this petition) was granted lease of 3 khans of shop premises from the above house. It is further alleged that in 1962, respondent No.2 Hirachand started business in partnership with respondent No.1 Shripal. Thereafter, without the landlords' consent, the original tenant-respondent No.2 handed over exclusive possession of the suit premises to the respondent No.1. The landlords sought a decree of eviction against the respondents on three grounds : (1) that Hirachand, the respondent No.2, is not ready and willing to pay the rent; (2) that he has sublet the premises without the written consent from the landlords; and (3) that the landlords need the suit premises bona fide for their own business. The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record, recorded a finding against the landlords on all the grounds and dismissed the suit. The dismissal of the suit was confirmed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 13th July 1983. Thus, what is challenged in the present petition are the orders of both the subordinate courts.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have held that there is no sub-letting of the suit premises in favour of respondent No.2. However, now, even if it is assumed that there is sub-letting of the premises, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act, sub-tenancies created before 1.2.1973 are protected. Therefore, no fault can be found with the orders of the courts below refusing to pass a decree in favour of the landlords on the ground of sub-letting.

(3.) THAT leaves only one ground, namely, the ground of bona fide need of the landlords of the suit premises for their own business. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the landlords have not been able to establish that they need the premises bona fide for their own business. No manifest error of law in the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below has been pointed out to me and therefore, in my opinion, I would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below on that ground in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.