SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND ORS. versus RAMESH S. HANKARE (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 27-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ AND ORS. 
v. 
RAMESH S. HANK.ARE (D) BY LRS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
c 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947: 
S.12( 3 )( a)-Suit.for eviction of tenant on ground of non-payment of rent 
within prescribed period after service of notice-Trial Court decreed the suit 
recording a.finding that anwunt was not paid within permissible period-Order 
1m:1intained by appellate court-High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 
227 of the Constitution in writ petition .filed by tenant set aside order of 
appellate court-Held, rent in dispute relates to the period from 1.1.1978 to 
30.6.1978-Notice of demand sent 011 14.7.1978-Period permissible to pay 
D 
rent expired on 14.8.1978-De.fence of tenant that money order was received 
back on 17.7.1978 as re.fused not substantiated-Tenant did not file receipt of 
sending money order-Trial Court rightly drew adverse inference against 
him-Money order coupen containing endorsement "re.fused" was examined 
by trial Court and.found that postal stamp was dated 27.8.1978-These.findings 
E 
F 
were confirmed by appellate Court-High Court misread the money order 
coupon as containing the date August 17, 1978-Adverse inference drawn by 
trial court and appellate court remains unrebutted-Finding recorded by High 
Court cannot be sustained-Order of High Court set aside and that of appellate 
court restored-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 227-Held, in an application under Article 227 High Court is 
concerned not with decision but with decision making process-It has to see 
whether the lower court/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if 
so, whether the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4756-4757 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.96 of the Bombay High Court 
in W.P. Nos. 3262/89 and 307 of 1991. 
H 
N.N. Keshwani and Ramlal Roy for the Appellants. 
390 
SUGARBAI M. SIDDIQ v. RAMESH S. HANKARE 
391 
Bhim Rao, Vijay Nagar, S.K. Verma and S.M. Jadhav for the respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was. delivered : 
These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common order 
of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, passed in 
Writ Petition No. 307 of 1991 and in Writ petition No. 3262 of 1989 on October 
B 
17, 1996. The appeal arising out of order in Writ Petition No. 3262 of 1989 
is not pressed. The facts in the appeal arising out of order in Writ Petition No. 
307 of 1991 which are relevant for our purposes, may be noticed here. 
The appellants are the landlords of premises bearing Municipal No. 2573 
C 
(City Survey Nos. 27 & 27-A) in Mochi Lane Ahmednagar (for short 'the 
premises') and the respondents arc the legal representatives of the original 
tenant (hereinafter referred to as, 'the respondents'). The appellants filed suit 
No. 756 of 1978 in the court of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at 
Ahmednagar against the respondents seeking their eviction on two grounds -
the first is non-payment of rent for more than six months even after notice of 
demand under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and the second is 
reasonable and bona fide requirement of the appellants, under Section 13(g) of 
D 
the Act. The only ground which now survives is the first ground, namely, 
default in payment .of rent for the period exceeding six months from January 
E 
1, 1978 to June 30, 1978. A notice demanding the rent was sent to the 
respondents on July 3, 1978 which was served on July 14, 1978; the demand 
in the notice was not fulfilled within the statutory period of one !llOnth. The 
respondents contested the suit stating that they did not receive the notice; that 
rent was sent by money order but the appellants refused to accept the same; 
F 
that they had already paid the rent and, therefore, the ground was not available 
to the appellants. 
On consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the 
trial court found that the amount was not paid within the permissible period and 
decreed the suit for eviction on July 15, 1981. On appeal by the respondents 
G 
herein the order of eviction was maintained and the appeal was dismissed by 
the appellate court on December 23, 1983. That order was assailed by the 
res

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.