Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an eviction petition filed by Kamla Devi (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) against Thakar Das (since deceased, represented by legal representatives) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for herself and her son Madan Mohan. The relationship of landlord-tenant was undisputed, with monthly rent of Rs. 112.50. The tenant tendered arrears of rent from 17 July 1998 to 9 June 2003 along with interest and costs, which was accepted. The Rent Controller, Nabha, framed eight issues and decreed eviction on both grounds. The Appellate Authority, Patiala, affirmed the findings. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in revision reversed the findings, holding that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide. The Supreme Court, after granting leave, examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. It held that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own view, especially when the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had recorded concurrent findings of fact based on evidence. The Court noted that the landlord's need for the premises for her son's business was genuine, and the tenant's plea that an 80-year-old woman could not run a business was irrelevant as the requirement was for her son. The Court also observed that the tenant's argument about another vacant shop was not substantiated. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 13(3)(a)(i) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement - Landlord's need for premises for her son's business - Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority in favour of landlord - High Court in revision reversed findings without proper appreciation - Held that High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own view - Appeal allowed, eviction decree restored (Paras 1-9). B) Rent Control - Arrears of Rent - Section 13(2)(i) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Tender of arrears - Tenant tendered entire arrears with interest and costs which was accepted - Issue of validity of tender decided in favour of tenant - Not challenged - No further consideration required (Paras 3.1, 3.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside. Eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller, Nabha and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala restored.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Eviction under rent control laws
- Tender of arrears of rent
- Scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
- 1949
