In a recent case of Haresh Panchal Harish Vallabhbhai Naroliwala v/s Leela Chandrakant Naik, involving a landlord-tenant dispute under the Bombay Rent Act, the Bombay High Court examined the scope of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court considered whether it should interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court in the eviction suit, particularly on the grounds of arrears of rent, unauthorized subletting, and unauthorized construction. This article provides an overview of the case, legal principles, and the Court's reasoning, shedding light on important aspects of landlord-tenant law, eviction, and revisionary jurisdiction.

Infirmity in the Demand Notice: It was argued that the demand notice issued by the landlord was invalid because it sought rent for a period prior to the issuance of the probate in 1988. Since the landlord became the legal heir and rightful owner of the property only after the probate was granted, the notice for rent arrears before August 1988 was considered illegal.

Deposit of Rent: The defendant argued that after framing of issues in 2005, Defendant No. 2 deposited the arrears of rent, and thus, the eviction decree on the ground of rent arrears should not have been passed.

Unauthorized Subletting: The defense claimed that there was no unauthorized subletting because Defendant No. 2 was the son of the original tenant, and the first defendant had intermittently resided in the suit premises even after moving to the USA.

Illegal Construction: Defendant No. 2 contended that the construction made in the suit premises was minor in nature and carried out with the landlord's permission.

The landlord's counsel opposed the revision application, arguing that the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the appellate court should not be disturbed. Key points made included:

Demand Notice Validity: The demand notice was issued in compliance with the requirements of the Bombay Rent Act, and any defect in the notice related to the period prior to the landlord's ownership was not material to the issue of rent arrears.

Rent Deposit and Legal Requirements: The defendant failed to deposit the rent on time and irregularly made payments, failing to meet the statutory requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. The law mandates that the tenant must deposit rent before the first date of hearing to avoid eviction.

Unauthorized Subletting: The first defendant had permanently migrated to the USA and did not appear in the suit to contest the claim. As such, the defense of "intermittent residence" was not substantiated, and the subletting claim was proven.

Construction Without Permission: Defendant No. 2 could not produce any written permission from the landlord for the construction in question, and as such, the eviction on the grounds of unauthorized construction was justified.

Infirmity in the Demand Notice: The Court held that the notice demanding rent from January 1987 was valid. As the plaintiff was the legal heir of the original landlord, there was no prohibition on demanding rent from that period. Even if there was a technical defect in the notice regarding rent prior to August 1988, the rest of the demand for rent was valid, and the tenant’s dispute over who should receive the rent did not invalidate the demand.

Unauthorized Subletting: The defense regarding unauthorized subletting was found to be without merit. The first defendant did not appear in the suit or file any written statement to contest the claim of subletting. Furthermore, the evidence showed that Defendant No. 1 had migrated permanently to the USA, and Defendant No. 2 had taken exclusive possession of the premises.

Unauthorized Construction: The Court also upheld the eviction on the ground of unauthorized construction. As per Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act, tenant constructions require the landlord's written permission. The defendant’s inability to produce such written consent led the Court to reject the defense of lawful construction.

The High Court, in this case, affirmed the eviction decree passed by both the trial court and the appellate court. The Court emphasized that revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or patently erroneous findings, and in this case, there was no such error. The tenant's failure to comply with statutory requirements, including timely rent deposit and failure to prove the absence of unauthorized subletting or construction, led to the confirmation of the eviction decree.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Bombay Rent Act and highlights the narrow scope of interference in concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in revision applications.