LexVIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT AND ANR. versus VINAYAK N. JOSHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VIRENDRA KASHINA TH RAV AT AND ANR.
A
v.
VINA YAK N. JOSHI AND ORS.
NOVEMBER, 11 1998
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
B
Rent Control & Eviction :
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-
Section 13(J){e) and 15i-Eviction-Death of original tenant-Unlawfal C
subletting of premises-Trial Court passing Eviction Order-Confirmed by
appellate court-High Court quashed the eviction order on the ground that
landlords failed to recognise second respondent as tenant and no averment
in plaint that the Building was sublet to first respondent-On appeal-Held,
High Court not justified in quashing the Eviction Order on the ground that D
the second respondent was not treated as tenant-An approach of abundant
caution by the landlords cannot be used for non suiting them-Insufficient
pleading in the plaint-Never raised by the respondents before the lower
courts-Hence plaint not elaborated-However this could not have been a
premise on which High Court could have interfered under Article 227-Civil
Procedure Code Order VI Rule 5.
E
Constitution of India-Article 227-Jurisdiction-Exercise of-
Concurrent findings of facts-Interference by High Court-Held : High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction.
Appellants, owners of the suit premises, let out their building to one F
'S'. On the death of original tenant 'S', the appellants filed a suit for eviction
on the ground that the premises was sub-let to respondents 1 and 2. The
second respondent claimed that she being the daughter of original tenant 'S',
the tenancy rights have devolved on her with the death of her mother. The
case of first respondent was that he was permitted by the tenant to occupy G
the building on lease and licence basis under an agreement and thus claimed
protection under Section ISA of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Trial Court found that the second
respondent was the daughter of the original tenant and first respondent was
inducted into possession by second respondent. The Trial Court held that
H
643
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A induction of first respondent into the building amounted to unlawful sub-
Mting. It therefore, granted decree for eviction. On appeal, the appellate
court confirmed the decree for eviction. But the High Court quashed the
Eviction Order on the ground that the appellants have not treated the second
defendant as their tenant and that there was no clear averment in the plaint
B to the effect that the building has been sub-let to the first respondent Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting
C the concurrent findings of facts by two fact finding Courts, on a very fragile
reasoning that there was no sufficient averment in the plaint regarding the
ground under Section 13(l)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947. (648-A)
2. The High Court was not justified in non-suiting the appellants on
D the premises that they have nowhere treated the second respondent as their
tenant The appellants in their averments in the plaint have clearly recognised
'S' as their tenant in respect of the suit premises. On her death it became
doubtful for the appellants to spell out who are the real legal heirs of the
tenant. Whoever were the real legal heirs, they became entitled to the
tenancy right and hence appellants left it to the Court to finally say as to.
E who among the claimants are the legal heirs. An approach adopted by the
appellants by way of abundant caution cannot now be used against them for
non-suiting them altogether. [647-8-F-G]
3. The High Court has quashed the Order of Eviction on the ground
that the pleadings in the plaint were insufficient to make out a case of sub-
F letting. This point was never raised before the two fact finding Forums.
Order VI Rule S of the Code of Civil Procedure confers powers on the Court
to order a party to make a further statement or better statement or further
and better particulars in the pleadings. If the contesting respondent had
raised the objection that the pleadings was scanty, appellants would have
G further elaborated it as provided in Rule S. At any rate this should not have
been a premise on which interference by the High Court should have been
made in exercising a jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution. (648-F-G)
Manphul SinghExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.