Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision case by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana concerning the eviction of the appellant from rented premises. The respondent had filed for ejectment on grounds including non-payment of rent, sub-letting, and bonafide requirement. The Rent Controller rejected the claims of non-payment and sub-letting but allowed eviction based on bonafide requirement. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the Appellate Authority was dismissed, leading to the filing of a Civil Revision case, which was also dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the concurrent findings of fact were not vitiated by any infirmity or perversity. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant a nine-month period to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Bonafide Requirement - Concurrent Findings - Dismissal of Appeal - The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order based on bonafide requirement as determined by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The court found no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant was granted a further period to vacate the premises. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order based on bonafide requirement and allowing the appellant a nine-month period to vacate the premises.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Rent Control
- Concurrent Findings
- Civil Revision
- Bonafide Requirement
