Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the defendants (tenants) against the judgment and decree of the appellate court confirming the eviction decree passed by the trial court. The plaintiff (landlord) had filed a suit for recovery of possession of a shop premises admeasuring 600 sq. ft. on the ground of bonafide requirement for himself and his two sons. The plaintiff claimed that he and his sons were in the jewelry business and needed the suit premises to start an independent showroom. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff had several other properties and that the need was not genuine. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff proved bonafide requirement of his son Praful. The appellate court confirmed the decree. In revision, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff and his sons did not step into the witness box. Instead, the plaintiff's daughter-in-law, PW1, who was a constituted attorney, gave evidence. The High Court held that PW1, being an advocate and not involved in the jewelry business, had no personal knowledge of the bonafide requirement. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, the High Court held that a constituted attorney can only depose about facts within her personal knowledge. Since PW1 lacked such knowledge, her evidence was inadmissible to prove bonafide requirement. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove the ground of bonafide requirement. The High Court also noted that the trial court had rejected the bonafide need of Deepak, and the appellate court erroneously upheld it without cross-objection. On comparative hardship, the High Court held that the tenant would suffer greater hardship as they had been in possession since 1969 and had a thriving business. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the eviction decree, and dismissed the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revision under Section 115 CPC - Scope - The High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC can interfere only if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Act - Competency of Constituted Attorney to Depose - A constituted attorney can depose about facts within her personal knowledge, but cannot depose about matters known only to the principal. In this case, PW1, the daughter-in-law, was an advocate and had no personal knowledge of the jewelry business or the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and his sons. Her evidence was held to be insufficient to prove bonafide requirement. (Paras 6-10) C) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - The landlord must prove a genuine and honest need for the suit premises. The courts below erred in relying on the evidence of PW1 who had no personal knowledge. The plaintiff and his sons did not step into the witness box. The bonafide requirement was not proved. (Paras 7-12) D) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - The tenant would suffer greater hardship if evicted, as the tenant had been in possession since 1969 and had a business of readymade garments. The landlord had other properties and the need was not bonafide. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement when the plaintiff and his sons did not step into the witness box and evidence was led by a constituted attorney.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate court and the trial court, and dismissed the suit for eviction.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement
- Evidence by constituted attorney
- Comparative hardship
- Mesne profits
- Section 115 CPC
