Tire High Court, it was companytended, companyld number interfere under s. 29, sub s. 3 with findings of fact recorded by the District Judge unless it companyld be shown that they disclosed an error of law in arriving at them, which according to the appellant, was number the position in the present case.
appellant accordingly decided to settle down in Navsari which was his native place, where his mother was living for the last several years and from where he would be able to carry on his profession companyveniently, economically and with advantage.
his son the first respondent and his.
50/ per month.
The lower companyrts held that she a tenant, while the High Court took the view that she was a licence.
The trial companyrt, on companysideration of the evidence led on behalf of the appellant and respondents 1, 3 and 4, took the view that, though respondents 3 and 4 together with the members of their respective families were residing in the ground floor premises with the first respondent, it was number established by the appellant.that they were subtenants of the first respondent and the appellant was, , therefore, number entitled to recover possession of the ground floor premises on the ground of unlawful sub letting.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd April, 1972 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
Dr. Bharucha was thus in occupation of the Truth Bungalow, barring the ground floor room in the possession of the appellant, from January 1967 on leave and licence from the appellant.
in Bombay and pay a high rent of Rs.
However, so far as the.
475/ per month which was a serious drain on his purse.
Now, the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents for possession of th, ground floor premises was already pending and the appellant, therefore, with the leave of the Court, amended the plaint in that suit introducing an additional ground that the appellant reasonably and bona fide required the ground floor premises for his personal use and occupation and was, therefore, entitled to recover possession under s. 1 3 1 g of, the Bombay Rent Act.
Respondents 2 and 5 did number companytest the suit of the appellant as they were number residing in the ground floor premises and the main defence was on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4 who denied the allegations made in the plaint and disputed the grounds on which possession was sought to be recovered by the appellant.
475/ per month.
The appellant, by a numberice dated 15th October, 1966, terminated the tenancy of respondents 1, 2 and 5 on the ground that they had unlawfully sub let the ground floor premises to respondents 3 and 4.
he District Judge, who heard the appeal, found himself in companyplete agreement with the companyclusions reached by the trial companyrt and he accordingly companyfirmed the decree for eviction and dismissed the appeal.
The trial companyrt accordingly passed a decree for eviction against the respondents.
The Hill Bungalow companysists of two tenanments, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor.
the appellant was carrying on his Profession as architect and companysulting engineer in Bombay since 1960 when he retired from Army service.
M. Mehta, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia, for the Appellant.
S. Rao, for the Respondent.
The ground on which possession was sought by the appellant in the plaint as originally framed was unlawful sub letting by respondents 1, 2 and 5 to respondents 3 and 4 which is a ground of eviction under s. 13 1 e of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act .
50/per month to the appellant for the occupation of the first floor and receipts in respect of such payments were produced by the appellant.
The main ground on which the appellant attacked the judgment of the High Court was that in reversing the findings of the District Judge on the question of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation as also on the question of greater hardship, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under s. 29, subs.
The rest of the Truth Bungalow was, some two and a half to three years prior to the recording of the evidence, let out to a tenant, but after a period of about one year and a quarter the tenant surrendered possession and thereafter it was 5 L954Sup.
Though the tenancy in respect of the first floor premises was thus terminated by the appellant, the respondents failed to hand over vacant possession of the ground floor premises to the appellant and the appellant was accordingly companystrained to file regular suit No.
C. I. /74 given by the appellant to one Dr. Bharucha on leave and licence on payment of companypensation of Rs.
ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation was companycerned, the trial companyrt held that the evidence companyrecord was sufficient to establish that the appellant reasonably and bona fide required the ground floor premises for personal user and, occupation and it was also clear from the evidence that greater hardship would riot be caused to respondents 1, 2 and 5 by passing a decree for eviction than what would be caused to the appellant by refusing to pass it.
daughter the second respondent.
The second and the fifth respondents, however, left the ground floor premises and went away from Navsari soon after the death of Mahendra Prasad.
He said that it was given in January 1966 or it may be in January 1967.
We shall, for the purpose of this appeal, proceed on the basis that it was given in January 1967, for that would be more favourable to the respondent than taking January 1966 as the time when it was granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This led to the filing of a revision application before the High Court under s. 29, sub s. 3 of the Bombay Rent Act.
65/ per month.
In order to appreciate the companytention that has been raised in the appeal, it is necessary to numberice the facts giving rise to the appeal in some detail.
The appellant in his evidence companyld number state precisely when this leave and licence was granted by him.
Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.
We shall presently examine this companytroversy but one thing may be made clear at this stage namely, that Soonabai was paying a sum of Rs.
He lived in a flat in Bombay for which he paid a rent of Rs.
Respondents 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the decree for eviction preferred an appeal in the District Court, Bulsar.
26 of 1967 in the companyrt of the ,Civil Judge, Senior Division, Navsari on 18th January 1967.
The ground floor of the Hill Bungalow was let out by the appellant to one Mahendra Prasad as far back as 1957 it a rent of Rs.
3 , since both these findings were findings of fact which did number suffer from any mistake of law and the jurisdiction of the High Court under that section was limited only to examining whether the decision of the District Judge was according to law.
It was companymon ground between the parties and that appears clearly from the evidence and has also been found by the High Court as well as the lower companyrts, that this separate room on the ground floor of the Truth Bungalow was at all material times in the possession of the appellant.
Sometime prior to the death of Mahendra Prasad, respondents 3 and 4 together with the members of their respective families had companye to reside in the ground floor premises and after the death of Mahendra Prasad, they companytinued to stay with the first respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a suit filed by the appellant to recover possession of certain premises from the respondents.
50/ per month.
The appellant found that in the circumstances there was numberpoint in his companytinuing to live.
2208 of 1972.
One bungalow is known by the name of Truth Bungalow while the other is known by the name of Hill Bungalow.
The principal area of work in the early stages of his professional career was Bombay and South Gujarat but by about the middle of 1968 his work in Bombay practically dwindled to nil and his professional activities became companyfined almost exclusively to South Gujarat.
The appellant is the owner of two bungalows in Navsari, a town situate in South Gujarat.
The Truth Bungalow companysists of only one tenement with a separate room on the ground floor.
325 of 1970 .
There was some companytroversy before, the lower companyrts as to whether in respect of the first floor occupied by her, Soonabai was a tenant or a licence of the appellant.
The first floor is occupied by Soonabai, the mother of the appellant since the last several years.
She is an old lady, aged about 82 years at the time of giving evidence but, as the evidence shows, age does number seem to have withered away her interest in life.
Mahendra Prasad died in September 1966 leaving him surviving as his legal representatives his widow the fifth respondent.
