Concurrent tenant finding upheld under Rent Act

Justice M. M. Sathaye of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging concurrent orders of the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench that had recognized the respondent as a tenant under section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

The petitioner trust was the landlord of Flat No. 2 in Patel Building, Dadar. The respondent claimed tenancy after the death of the original tenant, Baji B. Patel, asserting that she had lived with him and was entitled to be recognized as tenant and to have the rent receipt transferred in her name.

The trust disputed the relationship, denied that she had been residing with the deceased tenant, and argued that she was a trespasser. It also raised a non-joinder objection and questioned the court’s jurisdiction. The Small Causes Court accepted the respondent’s claim and declared her tenant. The Appellate Bench dismissed the landlord’s appeal, though it set aside one finding relating to her residence with the deceased tenant.

In the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court focused on whether there was any perversity in the concurrent findings. The Court held that the findings of the trial court and appellate court did not suffer from perversity and that the conclusion reached was the most probable view on the material on record. On that basis, it declined to interfere in its limited supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had filed a separate eviction suit, R.A.E. Suit No. 515 of 2000, subject to the final outcome of this petition. The High Court clarified that the eviction suit would proceed on its own merits and expressed no view on it.

The writ petition was dismissed.

Practical takeaway: In tenancy disputes under section 5(11)(c), concurrent factual findings will usually stand unless a clear perversity is shown.