Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 concerning two non-residential buildings in Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. The appellant landlady, Smt. Fatima Bee, owned buildings bearing Nos. 21-2-372 and 21-2-373. Mahmood Siddiqui was tenant of both floors of building 21-2-373; Omer Siddiqui was tenant of the ground floor and Ahmad Khan of the first floor of building 21-2-372. The landlady, along with her husband and family, was engaged in manufacturing and selling bangles, carried on from three rented premises. Because the landlords of those premises were pressing them to vacate and it was inconvenient to operate from three places, the landlady asked the tenants to vacate and then gave notice. On their refusal, she filed eviction petitions R.C. Nos. 136, 142 and 135 of 1980 under Section 10(3) of the Act, alleging bona fide requirement for her business. The Second Additional Rent Controller, after appreciating evidence, found that the landlady did not own any other non-residential premises, was not carrying on business in her residential premises, and that her requirement was bona fide and genuine; he allowed the petitions on 11.4.1989. The tenants filed appeals R.A. Nos. 237, 238 and 236 of 1989. Meanwhile, the landlady filed three additional eviction petitions R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 and 1785 of 1986 under Section 10 of the Act, alleging that the tenants had taken false pleas in their written statements about an agreement for sale and a right of permanent tenancy, and that Mahmood and Omer had denied their tenancy. The Rent Controller held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, denial of title was mala fide, the tenants failed to prove agreement for sale or promise not to evict, and the claim of permanent tenancy was mala fide; he allowed eviction on those grounds and left open whether raising the plea of agreement to sell amounted to nuisance. The tenants appealed to the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, which heard all appeals together, confirmed the findings regarding tenancy, bona fide requirement, and mala fide claims, and dismissed the appeals. The tenants then filed six revision applications in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed Ahmad Khan's revisions, holding that he had sub-let and defaulted in rent, but allowed the revisions of Mahmood Siddiqui and Mohd. Omer Siddiqui. It held that the tenants had not denied the landlady's ownership, that raising a plea of agreement for sale did not amount to denial of title, and that there was some evidence to support permanent tenancy, so it could not be regarded as mala fide. On bona fide requirement, the High Court found that the lower courts' finding was not based on relevant evidence because the area required was not stated, and therefore Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) was not satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in reversing concurrent findings of fact by re-appreciating evidence. It noted that witnesses testified about the bangle business being carried from three shops and the intention to carry it from the suit premises, and no cross-examination challenged that a lesser area would suffice. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with findings on bona fide requirement and permanent tenancy, and that mala fide claim of permanent tenancy is a separate ground for eviction under Section 10(1) proviso and Section 10(2)(vi). The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order in C.R.P. Nos. 757, 758, 759 and 760 of 1994, and restored the Rent Controller's orders in R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 of 1986 and 136, 142 of 1980 as confirmed by the appellate court in R.A. Nos. 237 of 1989, 299 of 1992, 238 of 1989 and 302 of 1992. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord - Section 10(3) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Concurrent findings by the Rent Controller and appellate court that the landlady required the non-residential premises bona fide for her family bangle business were based on appreciation of evidence; witnesses stated the business would be carried on from the suit premises and were not cross-examined on sufficiency of area. Hew High Court in revision erred in reversing those findings on the ground that the exact area required was not stated. Held that the High Court's interference with findings of fact was beyond revisional jurisdiction (Paras 1-4). B) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - High Court should not re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below unless such findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence; the Rent Controller and appellate court had considered rival evidence and no part was misread. Held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own view on evidence (Paras 1-4). C) Rent Control - Denial of Title and Mala Fide Claim of Permanent Tenancy - Section 10(1) proviso and Section 10(2)(vi) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Tenants raised pleas of agreement for sale and permanent tenancy; courts below found those claims mala fide after appreciating oral evidence. The High Court reversed the finding by holding that some evidence supported permanent tenancy. Held that mala fide claim of permanent tenancy is a separate ground for eviction apart from denial of title, and the High Court's reversal was improper (Paras 1-4). D) Evidence - Concurrent Findings of Fact - No specific Act - Findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and appellate court after appreciation of evidence are binding in revision unless perverse; the High Court cannot reject them merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. The omission of the exact area required for business was not raised in cross-examination and thus could not vitiate the finding of bona fide requirement. Held that the High Court's interference was unjustified (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in revision exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and reversing concurrent findings of fact on the landlady's bona fide requirement and the tenants' mala fide claim of permanent tenancy; whether the requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 were satisfied absent evidence of the exact area required; whether raising a plea of agreement for sale and permanent tenancy constituted denial of title or a separate ground for eviction under Section 10(1) proviso and Section 10(2)(vi) of the Act
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; judgment and order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 757, 758, 759 and 760 of 1994 set aside; judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C. Nos. 1776, 1777 of 1986 and 136, 142 of 1980 as confirmed by the appellate court in R.A. Nos. 237 of 1989, 299 of 1992, 238 of 1989 and 302 of 1992 restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact unless findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence
- bona fide requirement of landlord is a finding of fact
- omission to state exact area required for business is not fatal when not challenged in cross-examination
- mala fide claim of permanent tenancy is a separate ground for eviction under Section 10(1) proviso and Section 10(2)(vi)
- apart from denial of title
- revisional jurisdiction under rent control law does not extend to re-weighing evidence
