TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether default in payment of rent could be introduced by amendment and sustain eviction under the Bombay Rent Act; (ii) whether the tenant had acquired alternate suitable residence; (iii) whether the premises were liable to eviction on the ground of non-user; (iv) whether unlawful subletting was proved.
Issue (i): Whether default in payment of rent could be introduced by amendment and sustain eviction under the Bombay Rent Act.
Analysis: A suit for eviction on non-payment of rent can be instituted only after service of a notice of demand under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and expiry of one month without payment. A default arising after the institution of the suit does not relate back so as to validate the original suit on that ground. The subsequent arrears could at best give rise to a fresh cause of action, not to eviction in the pending suit by amendment.
Conclusion: The ground of default was not available to the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the tenant had acquired alternate suitable residence.
Analysis: The allotment of service quarters by itself did not conclusively establish a continuing acquisition of alternate suitable residence where the tenant had retired and was required to surrender the quarters. The later event of retirement was relevant and could not be ignored in assessing the existence of the ground under the rent statute.
Conclusion: The ground of alternate suitable residence was not made out.
Issue (iii): Whether the premises were liable to eviction on the ground of non-user.
Analysis: For eviction on non-user, it is sufficient to show that the premises were not used for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the suit without reasonable cause. Total abandonment is not required. The concurrent finding that the premises were not so used was based on evidence and did not suffer from perversity warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The ground of non-user was proved and the decree on that basis was sustained.
Issue (iv): Whether unlawful subletting was proved.
Analysis: The tenant was not in occupation for a substantial period, the premises were occupied by a third party, and the tenant offered no satisfactory explanation of the occupant's capacity. In such circumstances, an inference of unlawful subletting was justified on the evidence accepted by the lower courts.
Conclusion: The ground of subletting was proved and the decree on that basis was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The petition failed, and the decree for possession was maintained on the established grounds of non-user and subletting, notwithstanding rejection of the default and alternate residence grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: In an eviction matter under the Bombay Rent Act, a ground of rent default must be founded on a valid statutory notice and existing cause of action at the time of suit, while non-user and subletting may be inferred from continuous absence and unexplained third-party occupation, subject to concurrent findings of fact not being interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction absent perversity.
TaxTMI 
