Facts

Mr Ram Dass (Appellant) was a tenant of the premises of then Smt Manohar Kaur on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 having been inducted into possession on 9.12.1965. The premises in the occupation of the appellant consisted of a portion of the ground-floor of the building as well. On 15.12.1976, Manohar Kaur sold the entire property in favour of respondents (Ishwar Chander & Ors). The respondents are four brothers. Prior to the purchase, they were occupying, as tenants, other portions of the same building both in the first floor and the second floor. They were in occupation of three rooms in the first ~floor and one in the second. On 27.9.1977, the respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of their own bonafide requirement of the premises. They alleged that the property in their occupation was insufficient according to their needs and that they required additional accommodation. They stated that they were in all 10 brothers who, along with their families, were living together with their father.

Mr Ram Dass stated that one of the brothers of the respondent had a rented premise in the same town at a different place, the, Mohalla Malkana and that that the respondents' father was himself in occupation of a separate rented premises. The respondents thus had sufficient accommodation and that that their projected need was fictitious and malafide. The proceedings were thus brought in collusion with the previous owner.

Appellants Contention

The appellant stated that the order of the High Court suffers from, and stands vitiated, by, two serious errors. Firstly, according to the learned Counsel, is that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was precluded from reopening findings of facts recorded by the Appellate-Authority and substituting fresh findings of its own on a reappraisal of the evidence even if the fresh findings so recorded could be said to be amongst those possible on the evidence. Secondly, that the findings as to the bonafides, or the lack of it, of the alleged need for the additional-accommodation recorded by the Appellate Authority were sound, proper and supportable on the evidence on record and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not have reappraised the evidence afresh and that the findings so substituted by the High Court are wholly erroneous.

The appellant stated that although the landlord has bonafide requirement, reasonable requirement, bonafide-reasonable requirement or in this case as that the landlord requires for his own use but the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need.

 Respondents Contention

The respondent stated that on the first contention that the revisional powers do not extend to interference with and upsetting of findings of fact, it needs to be observed that, subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions, the matter essentially turns on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction.

Judgement

  • The Rent Controller upheld the claim of the landlords and made an order granting possession.
  • The Appellate Authority (District Judge) allowed appellants' appeal and set-aside the order of eviction.
  • The High Court in revision under Section 15(5) of the Act reversed the appellate judgment and restored that of the court of first instance. The aggrieved tenant has come-up by special leave.
  • The HC has the power to satisfy itself as to " legality and propriety ' of Order and can consider subsequent developments bought to the notice of court through affidavits. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
For Original Judgement, Click Here

About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Falgu Mukati, law student at SVKMS Pravin Gandhi College of Law. She can be reached at falgum@yahoo.com 

MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here