AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Soumen Sen, C.J.
The concurrent findings of facts with regard to the bona fide need and arrears of rent have been challenged in this revision.
Having regard to the limited scope in which a revisional court can exercise jurisdictional discretion in interfering with concurrent findings of facts, we heard the learned counsel for the parties to find out whether the revision merits admission and consideration, confining ourselves to the exercise of such limited revisional jurisdiction. Ordinarily, a finding of fact based on evidence, unless it appears to be manifestly arbitrary, does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts and evidence.
In the instant case, it appears that one Abdul Saleem and Abdul Huck were the co-owners of the premises in question. Subsequently, Abdul Huck sold his 50% share in the property to the present landlords, who are three in number and these landlords instituted a suit for eviction on the grounds of reasonable requirement and arrears of rent.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Abdul Saleem and Abdul Huck were the partners of the first petitioner firm. Subsequently, Abdul Huck sold his share in the property to the present landlords. It was contended that there was no reconstitution of the partnership firm thereafter, and that the partnership continued as before. However, it was further submitted that having regard to the fact that Abdul Saleem continues to be one of the partners in the first petitioner firm, whether he had consented to and agreed with the continuation of the eviction proceedings by the three landlords either on the ground of bona fide requirement or on the ground of arrears of rent was yet to be ascertained. In the absence of his views being obtained in this regard, it was contended that both the courts have committed an error resulting in serious miscarriage of justice.
We are, however, unable to accept the said submission, having regard to the fact that an eviction petition at the instance of a co-owner is maintainable. This principle has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanta Goal v. B.P.Pathak1 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh2. In fact, both the courts have relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Krishna Rao3 wherein, in paragraph 5, the said principle was applied by following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Paragraph 5 reads as follows
“In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel Vs. B.P. Pathak (AIR 1977 SC 1599) and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (AIR 1989 SC 758) it is too late in the day for the Petitioners to contend that the first respondent, one of the co-owners of the building, is not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction of the tenants. So long as the other co-owners do not object to the first Respondent''s application, the petition filed by him is maintainable and the courts are justified in overruling the objection raised by the tenants on the maintainability of the petition for eviction.”
Moreover, a significant circumstance in the present case is that in reply to the eviction notice, the petitioners alleged that Abdul Saleem was instrumental in filing the eviction proceedings, which clearly shows that, according to the present petitioners, Abdul Saleem had impliedly consented to such eviction proceedings.
Insofar as the ground of arrears of rent is concerned, there have been concurrent findings of fact by both the courts with regard to the non-payment of arrears of rent based on the rent agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that photocopy of the rent agreement is inadmissible in evidence. However, it appears from the pleadings that there is a categorical statement by the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition that the original agreement was not in their possession and they had retained only a photocopy thereof. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the rent had been paid in accordance with the terms of the rent agreement, the contention regarding the non-production of the original rent agreement, cannot be accepted.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the first petitioner has been running the business for the last ten years and requested that some reasonable time may be given to vacate the premises so as to enable the petitioners to find a suitable alternative accommodation.
Considering the fact that immediate eviction may cause serious hardship and prejudice to the first petitioner, we grant the petitioners time till 31st July 2027 to vacate and surrender the premises in question, subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of ₹1 crore to the first respondent, who shall accept the same on behalf of the other respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date and paying occupation charges at the rate of ₹60,000/-per month until the premises are vacated or until 31st July 2027, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also file an undertaking to that effect before the Executing Court within a fortnight from the date. Any amount found to be additionally payable may be recovered by the respondents in accordance with law, if so advised. The occupation charges for the month of July 2026 shall be paid on or before 7th August 2026, and the occupation charges for every succeeding month shall be paid on or before the 7th day of the respective month. In default of compliance with any of the conditions mentioned above, the decree shall be executed forthwith.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.