Shantaben's Appeal Dismissed as High Court Reaffirms Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction under Bombay Rent Act
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed the revision application filed by Shantaben, seeking to overturn the judgments of the Small Cause Court and the appellate Bench regarding tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The case revolved around the tenancy of a shop in Asarwa, originally rented to Natvarlal Somdas Patel, whose widow, Shantaben, claimed succession of the tenancy rights.
The High Court, presided by Justice J.C. Doshi, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, which restricts the High Court from reappreciating evidence or substituting findings of lower courts. The Court can only correct errors of law that go to the root of the decision.
The dispute originated when the landlord, Vinubhai Gandabhai Patel, filed a suit for the peaceful and vacant possession of the shop, claiming Shantaben did not qualify as a tenant under Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Act. This provision requires family members to have been conducting business with the deceased tenant at the time of death to qualify as tenants.
Shantaben contended that her nephew, Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel, was conducting business with her late husband and continued after his death, thus qualifying as a tenant. However, both lower courts found no evidence supporting this claim, leading to the dismissal of her appeal.
In its judgment, the High Court reiterated that the revisional powers are meant to ensure legal compliance and not to act as a second appeal. It noted that Shantaben failed to establish any manifest error of law in the lower courts' decisions.
The ruling underscores the stringent requirements for succeeding tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act and affirms the importance of evidence in proving such claims. The decision is expected to have significant implications for similar cases concerning tenancy succession in Gujarat.
Bottom Line:
The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, is limited to correcting errors that make the decision contrary to law and does not allow for reappreciation of evidence or substitution of findings.
Statutory provision(s): Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sections 29(2), 5(11)(c)(ii).
Shantaben v. Vinubhai Gandabhai Patel, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2833884
