Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 15, 16(1)(i), 16(k) – Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, Section 195 – Eviction proceedings – Concurrent findings – Reasonable and bona fide requirement – Dangerous building about 97 years old required to be demolished and erection of a new building– High Court found fault with the demolition notice as it carried no reference to the provision of Section 195 of the 1965Act – Held that this flaw, by itself would not make the notice unenforceable -Omission to label a notice with the provision under which it is issued would not make it nugatory, if substance thereof is clearly conveyed – However, findings by High Court that evidence does not make out any case that the suit premises were required for the immediate purpose of demolition – By virtually ignoring such material, the two Courts have proceeded to make a decree of eviction under Section 16(1)(k) of the Rent Act. This is an exercise in excess of jurisdiction – There is both illegality as well as material irregularity in the record of findings of fact, inasmuch as the Courts have failed to ask itself correct question in the context of ‘immediate purpose’ and further failed to consider relevant circumstances, rather the two Courts have allowed themselves to be persuaded by irrelevant circumstances- Appellant’s-landlord’s argument that the Court trying an eviction proceeding under the aforesaid provision has very limited role in determining as to whether demolition is really necessary or not accepted – However, it does not automatically follow there from that the Court would mechanically adopt the view of municipal authority of there being urgent need of demolition – The conditions under which a landlord can bring an eviction action under clauses (i) and (k) of Section 16(1) are different in their operations – In respect of an eviction proceeding founded on the former provision, it contemplates a lesser degree of immediacy or urgency – But the latter provision requires a greater degree of urgency and it is within the jurisdiction of the Court to test this factor – Both the fact finding for a failed on this count – Though, the Revisional Court was examining a judgment and decree already tested by the Appellate Forum and on facts, decree was made – Ordinarily the Revisional Court ought not to interfere with findings on fact – But in the judgment under appeal, find that the Revisional Court has fitted the facts with the legal provisions and found that there was mismatch on the basis of which the judgment and decree were set aside –Do not find any flaw that needs re-appreciation – Appeals liable to be dismissed. (Para 14, 16 to 18)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 72 SC
[2024 INSC 71]
Baitulla Ismail Shaikh And Anr. Vs.Khatija Ismail Panhalkar And Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016 with Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2016-Decided on 30-1-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-72-SC.pdf
