The Shalini Shyam Shetty was the tenant in
Room No.3 and was paying monthly rent of Rs.20/- including the water charges
and excluding the electricity charges. Premises was let out though the Shalini
Shyam Shetty (original tenant) was allowed to use a covered space of 10'x 4',
but the same was for common usage and for access to W.C and water tap along
with the other tenants.
The defendant had requested the plaintiff
to give keys of the two doors to clean the `Sherry' portion. But the keys were
not returned even after 2-3 days and the plaintiff became suspicious and
requested the defendant for returning the keys, but in vain. Suspecting some
foul play, the plaintiff entered the `sherry' to find that the defendant had
placed his items over there and removed the drainage cover which was there in
the Sherry. The plaintiff requested the defendant to remove those articles but
the request of the plaintiff was not heeded. A police complaint was made with
regard to the unauthorized possession but nothing happened. The expired during the pendency of LRs
were brought on record and they, in their written statement, admitted the
relationship between the parties, but they denied all the allegations against
them.
Rajendra Shankar Patil(Landlord) filed a
suit for eviction on the grounds of breach of terms of tenancy, damage to the
property as well as causing nuisance and annoyance to the plaintiff and the
other occupants. This appeal has been challenged the judgment of the Bombay
High Court rendered in the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in view of
concurrent finding of two lower courts and High Court thought that no
interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is warranted.
Supreme Court held that the High Court committed an error in
entertaining the writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant and
where the only respondent is a private landlord. The course adopted by the High
Court cannot be approved. High Court's
order of non- interference in view of concurrent findings of facts is
unexceptionable. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.