KUSUM LATA SHARMA versus ARVIND SINGH on 25 April 2023

[2023] 4 S.C.R. 493

KUSUM LATA SHARMA

v.

ARVIND SINGH

(Civil Appeal No. 3111 of 2023)

APRIL 25, 2023

[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction– Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seekingto evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement –Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On revision,the High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on theground that appellant had not been forthright in the description ofthe property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading mannerand the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed– On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings alongwith the site plan attached, it makes evident that the appellant gaveout a detailed description of the extent of accommodation availablein the suit property as also the accommodation presently in heroccupation and the nature and extent of her requirement – Appellanthad further made position clear in her cross-examination – Thus, itis clear that there had not been any such misdescription of theproperty – The material placed on record indicate that the appellantand other members of the family might be having title or interest insome other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operateagainst the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had beenaccepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogentreasons – Judgment of High Court set aside and the orders of RentController restored.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – s.25-B(8) – Limited jurisdictionunder – Held: In terms of the proviso to s.25-B(8), a limited windowis allowed to the extent that the High Court may call for the record,for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order had been passedin accordance with law – Pure finding of fact is not open forinterference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise oflaw.

493

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD. 1. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading thesame with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been anysuch misdescription of the property which would amount to amaterial flaw in the case of the appellant or which could haveBcaused prejudice to the respondent’s tenants. [Para 18][509-G-H]

2. Noteworthy, it is that it had not been the case of therespondents that they were not the tenants in the premises inquestion. The only attempt on the part of the respondents hadCbeen to suggest that other properties and accommodations wereavailable with the family. Such suggestion on the part ofrespondents had not been accepted by the Rent Controller asoperating against the assertion of bona fide requirement of theappellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentiallybeen the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record.DThere was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vagueground of want of clarity about description of the property inquestion. [Para 19][510-A-C]

3. The appellant as also her brother-in-law and the otherreferred members of the family might be having title or interestEin some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardlyoperate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction hadbeen accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and withcogent reasons. [Para 22][510-E]

4. The findings on bonafide requirement of the appellant inFrelation to both these cases could not have been disturbed bythe High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want ofclarity about identification of the property in question. [Para23][510-F]

Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 549 :G[2003] 2 SCR 580; Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua(2022) 6 SCC 30 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2003] 2 SCR 580referred toPara 5H(2022) 6 SCC 30referred toPara 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3111 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in RCREV No. 78 of 2015.

With

Civil Appeal No. 3112 of 2023.

Vinay Kr. Garg, Sr. Adv., Sagar Saxena, Rajeev MaheshwaranandRoy, Advs. for the Appellant.

Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Debabrata Dash, ApoorvaSharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against similar orders dated17.04.2018, as passed in RC. REV. No. 78 of 2015 and RC. REV. No.80 of 2015 respectively, whereby a learned Single Judge of the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi[1] has allowed the revision petitions filed bythe respective tenants and has reversed the similar orders dated21.11.2014, as passed in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and03 of 2011 by the Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini,Delhi[2]. These appeals, involving similar and common issues, have beenconsidered together and taken up for disposal by this common judgment.[3]

3. The learned Rent Controller, in the similar orders dated21.11.2014, had accepted the petitions for eviction filed by the presentappellant against the respective tenants, on the ground of her bona fiderequirement. However, in the impugned orders dated 17.04.2018, theHigh Court has reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, essentiallyon the ground that the appellant-landlord had not been forthright in 1 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the High Court’.

2 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’.

3 It may be pointed that in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 31550 of 2018 (relatingto RC. REV. No. 80 of 2015 before the High Court), the respondent-tenant had expiredduring the pendency of the petition in this Court and after setting aside abatement, hislegal representatives were brought on record by the order dated 09.12.2019.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adescription of the property in question and had taken the pleadings in amisleading manner about the facts concerning right, title and interest ofthe wife of his brother-in-law in the property in question and about thefact that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots as a commonsuperstructure.

B4. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the short point arisingfor determination in these appeals is as to whether the High Court hasbeen justified in reversing the respective orders of eviction. The factualaspects pertaining to both these cases lie in a narrow compass and couldbe noticed as follows:

C4.1. In the petition bearing No. 02 of 2011, the appellant soughteviction of the respondent-tenant with the averments that the respondentwas inducted as tenant by her predecessor in the year 1995 at the rentof Rs. 1200/- per month in one room on the first floor of the propertybearing No. C-586, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi – 110033. Theappellant also stated that the current monthly rent of the suit premisesDwas Rs. 2100/- but, the tenant had not paid the rent since 01.06.2010.

4.2. The description of the property by the appellant in her petitionsseeking eviction has formed the basis of the view of the High Courtabout want of forthrightness on her part. Therefore, it would beappropriate to reproduce the relevant parts of the pleadings taken byEthe appellant in that regard, which read as under: - “18. (a) The grounds on which the eviction of the tenant is sought:-

i) Petitioner and her family are presently residing in the groundfloor of aforesaid property and the accommodation presentlyFavailable with the petitioner is totally insufficient for them and forthe family members, who are dependent upon them for theirresidence. Petitioner resides in a joint family which comprises ofher husband’s real brother (=Brother in law), his wife, 2 unmarrieddaughters, 1 married daughter and 1 son and she considers familyof her brother in law as her own family. Entire family of theGpetitioner needs at least 5 bed rooms, 2 drawing rooms, 2 kitchen,3 toilets, 3 bathrooms, 1 pooja room, 1 guest room, 1 verandahand a servant quarter. Petitioner also requires two rooms with 1toilet, kitchen and verandah for opening of ‘Play-way’ by thirddaughter of her brother in law, Ms. Charu Sharma. However,accommodation presently available with the petitioner is only 2

H

bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens, 2 latrine/bathroom, 2 smallstore rooms, 1 pooja room and one verandah on the ground floorand 1 room each on the first and second floor which is grosslyinsufficient. Married daughter of brother in law of the petitionerand other close relatives of the petitioner keep visiting the petitionerand wants to stay with her out of love and affection for reasonableperiod, however due to lack of accommodation, they cannot stay.In such and other circumstances as detailed herein below petitioneris filing the present eviction petition for bonafide requirements.

Further, the construction of the whole premises is very old and indilapidated condition and needs urgent repairs and during the rainyseason, the petitioner and her family has to suffer immensehardship as there is water logging on the ground floor and life ofthe petitioner and her family is thrown out of gear. Further, all thefurnitures and fixtures are damaged during rainy season. Petitionerand her family members have to move all their belongings elsewhereduring rainy season. Even petitioner and her family members have to leave their home and go to theirrelatives place during rainy season.

Moreover, petitioner is a senior citizen and widow lady and therespondent and his family constantly misbehave and abuse thepetitioner.

ii) As stated above, front portion of property bearing no. C- 586/587, Gall No. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 comprises of onlyground floor and is having 2 bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens,2 latrine/bathroom, 2 small store rooms, 1 pooja room and onecourt yard and petitioner is presently having the aforesaidaccommodation in her possession. Apart from the above, out of 3rooms on the first floor and 3 rooms on the second floor, 1 roomeach on the first floor and second floor are in the possession ofthe petitioner.

iii) Petitioner submits that aforesaid accommodation which ispresently available with her is totally insufficient.

As stated above, family of petitioner comprises of herhusband’s real brother, his 2 unmarried daughters, 1 marrieddaughter and 1 son and petitioner considers family of her husband’sbrother as her own family. The eldest daughter of her husband’s AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abrother is Ms. Nisha who is married and is having one son agedabout 2 years and lives separately, second daughter is Ms. RenuSharma aged about 28 years and is unmarried, third daughter isaged about 25 years and studying in B.Com 3[rd] year(correspondence) from Delhi University and one son namelyMaster Govind Sharma who is aged about 16 years and studyingBin 10[th] class in A.G. DAV School, Model Town, Delhi. Documentsregarding residential proof of petitioner and her family membersare filed herewith as Annexure “P-1” (colly).”

4.3. The appellant took several other averments on her requirement,including the lack of accommodation for herself as also for the wife andCchildren of her brother-in-law. Along with the petition seeking eviction,the appellant appended a site plan of the property carrying the caption inthe following terms: - “Site plan of Property No. C-586, Gali No. 12,13, Majlis Park,Delhi – 110033.”D

4.4. The respondent-tenant filed his written statement denying theassertions of bona fide requirement of the appellant while stating, interalia, that the appellant wanted to sell out the suit premises to earn profit;her husband had expired 8-10 years back and she had no issues of herown; and there was no need of extra accommodation. It was also averredEthat the petition did not fall under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958[4], particularly when the appellantdid not disclose all the facts concerning possession of other propertiesbearing No. 588, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park; No. C-603, Gali No. 13,Majlis Park; and No. E-591, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park.F

4.5. In evidence, the appellant asserted the facts stated in herpetition. She was cross-examined extensively with questions pertainingto the properties belonging to herself, her brother-in-law (husband’sbrother) and wife of her brother-in-law, particularly concerning theproperty bearing No. C-587 as also those pertaining to the accommodationGavailable in the suit property. The relevant parts of the statement madeby her in cross- examination could be usefully extracted as under: - “xxx xxx xxx The building in which the suit property is situated is consisting H4 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’.

of ground, first and second floor. It is correct that I reside on theground floor.

It is correct that my brother in law Prem Kumar Sharmawas the owner of property no. C-588, Gali No.12, Majlis Park,Azadpur, Delhi. It is also correct that my brother in law PremKumar Sharma sold the said property to Smt. Sudesh Rani on23.06.2010 for Rs.16 Lakhs. It is correct that said property wassold vide sale deed Ex.PW1/R1.

(objected by counsel for petitioner stating the same isphotocopy. Heard. The objection shall be decided at the stage offinal arguments)

It is correct that Smt. Geeta Sharma is wife of my brotherin law Prem Kumar Sharma. It is correct that Smt. Geeta Sharmais owner of property bearing No. C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park,Azadpur, Delhi. Smt. Geeta Sharma herself is residing in propertybearing No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. Voltd.One building is constructed on the plot No. 586 and 587 and meand my sister in law Geeta Sharma are residing in the said onebuilding as one family.

It is also correct that Smt. Geeta Sharma was also the ownerof property bearing No. C-600, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur,Delhi. It is correct that in the year 2008 a tenant namely AshokKumar was in the said property No. C-600. It is correct to suggestthat the said property was sold by Geeta Sharma after getting thesame evicted. Voltd. The half of the plot in the house constructedon the said plot No.C-600 was demolished due to widening of theroad and therefore we got the same evicted and sold the same.

xxx xxxxxx

The building, in which the suit property is situated havingthree rooms, two stores, two kitchens, one pooja room and WC &Bath alongwith verandah on the ground floor; the first floor alsoconsists of three rooms constructed on back portion of the firstfloor; and second floor also consists of three rooms constructedon back portion of the second floor.

The respondent is a tenant in a room on first floor. Thetenant Ghansar Singh is tenant in one room on first floor and one AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aroom on second floor. It is correct that there was a tenant namelyRam Kewal in one room on second floor. It is also correct that Ihad filed an eviction petition against Ram Kewal alongwith presenttwo eviction petitions against the tenants. It is also correct thatRam Kewal has vacated the said room and has given its possessionto me.B

A

xxx xxx xxx

I do not have any residential accommodation except thesuit property. Along with me, my brother in law and his wife twodaughters and one son are residing in the suit property. I prepareCthe food along with other family members in one kitchen. Thesecond kitchen which I have stated as before is being used as astore as I am sharing the food with my brother in laws family.One property bearing no. 587 belongs to my brother in law, it isadjoining to the suit property and the accommodation as I havestated is under both the property which are jointly constructed...D

xxx xxx xxx”

4.6. The appellant led further evidence in support of her case andher brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece and nephew were also examinedas PW-2 to PW-5 respectively, who were duly cross-examined by theErespondents.

4.7. The respondent, in his evidence, denied the allegations oflack of accommodation with the appellant and the alleged requirementof the suit premises.

5. In the order dated 21.11.2014, after thoroughly examining theFmaterial on record, the learned Rent Controller observed that the appellantwas residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law and thewife, two unmarried daughters and son of her brother-in-law andproceeded to hold that the assertions about bona fide requirement of theappellant were duly established. While referring to a decision of thisCourt in the case of Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr.: (2003) 4GSCC 549, the Rent Controller also observed that the question of bonafide requirement could not be confined to the landlord alone and it wouldinclude the requirement of the family members, which would includeappellant’s brother-in-law, his wife and children as well. The relevantaspects of the findings of the Rent Controller could be usefully extracted H

as follows: -

“17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the petitioneris residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law, hiswife, two unmarried daughters and a son. As discussed in thejudgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of DwarkaPrasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (Supra) the term “family”, of thelandlord includes brother, sister and other near relatives. Thebonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be confined to thelandlord alone and it includes the requirement of the family memberof the petitioner, which includes his brother-in-law, his wife, sonand daughter of brother-in-law as well.

18. Having reached to the conclusion that family of petitionerincludes her brother-in-law, his wife and their children also, thepresent eviction petition is maintainable at the instance of thepetitioner. Now, I shall proceed to discuss the bonafide requirementas claimed by the petitioner.

19. Apparently, only two bedrooms are available with the petitioner/landlady. She alongwith her family consists of six members. Outof six members, two are young unmarried daughters and one is ateenage son. It goes without saying that young children requireseparate rooms to sleep and study. Three children of brother-in-law of petitioner require at least two bedrooms if two out of threeshare one bedroom. Similarly, they require at least one study room.The Petitioner’s brother-in-law and his wife require one bedroom.The petitioner also require a separate bedroom. One bedroom isalso required for the temporary stay of married daughter ofpetitioner’s brother-in-law as she comes to the suit property tovisit petitioner as well as her family and stay with the petitionerout of love and affection. The petitioner being an old lady alsorequires a puja room to spend her spare time to explore the spiritualpath. She being an old lady also requires assistance of a servantto perform her daily chores and so needs one room for her servant.Hence, the need of rooms by the petitioner condensed to at leasteight rooms, whereas she has only two bedrooms and it is not thebusiness of the court to ask the petitioner to carve out the spacefor rooms from the existing drawing room, lobby, storerooms etc.

20. The other ground taken for bonafide requirement is that the A

B

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Athird daughter of her brother in law Ms. Charu Sharma wants toopen play way to sustain herself and her family and she requiresat least two rooms with toilet, kitchen and veranda for opening aplay way. This fact has been mentioned in para no.9 of columnno. 18(a) of the eviction petition and the same has not been deniedin the written statement of the respondent. Further, no cross-Bexamination on this point has been done either of the petitioner orCharu Sharma, who appeared as a witness on behalf of thepetitioner. Thus, it seems that petitioner has accepted this groundof bonafide requirement. Therefore, the petitioner has proved bypreponderance of probabilities that she requires the tenantedCpremises for her bonafide requirement.”

5.1. As regards the description of property, learned Rent Controllerfound the same duly clarified and not operating against bona fiderequirement of the appellant with the following observations and findings:- “21. So far as the sales of the property no. C-588 and C-600, GaliDno.12, Majlispark, Azadpur, Delhi by petitioner’s brother-in-lawand his wife are concerned, it is observed here that the saidproperties were sold on 23.06.2010 for consideration ofRs.16,00,000/- and there may be hundreds of reasons to sell theproperty and that too were in the year 2010.Therefore, this factEdoes not go against the bonafide need of the petitioner because atthat time petitioner might not have felt the need for moreaccommodation.

22. The tenant has failed to bring on record any document duringtrial that petitioner is the owner of other properties No. C-603 andFE-591, Majlis Park, Delhi. The tenant has contradicted himself bysaying in para no.11 of (page 6) of the written statement thatpetitioner is the owner of property no. 588, whereas in parano.18(a)(1), the devar of the petitioner has been shown the ownerof property no. 588, Majlis Park.

G23. The petitioner in her cross-examination averred that the suitproperty has been constructed on two plots no. C-586 and C-587.On this aspect also, the respondent has failed to bring any contraryfact. Thus, the owner-ship of property No. C-587 also standsclarified to the effect that his devar’s wife property No. C- 587 isa part of the suit property.”H

5.2. In view of the above, the Rent Controller accepted the petitionand ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question, beingone room in the rear portion of the first floor of the building in questionwhile granting him six months’ time to vacate.

6. It may be pointed out at this juncture that the other evictionpetition bearing No. 03 of 2011 was filed by the appellant in relation tothe other tenant who was having two rooms on rent, each on the firstand second floor of the same property. Almost identical averments weretaken in the said petition and more or less the same grounds of oppositionwere stated by the tenant. The said matter proceeded on similar evidenceand the Rent Controller passed a similar order on the even date, i.e.,21.11.2014, while accepting the case of the appellant and similarly orderedeviction of the said tenant from the premises in question while grantingsix months’ time to vacate. In view of similarity of factors concerningboth the cases, we need not elaborate on the pleadings, evidence andfindings in relation to the other petition.

7. The aforesaid two revision petitions before the High Courtagainst the aforesaid orders dated 21.11.2014 proceeded on similargrounds and came to be accepted by the High Court with almost identicalorders. The High Court took the view that the appellant-landlord had notbeen forthright and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner; andthe availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed. Hence,the High Court formed the view that the appellant had failed to make outa case of bona fide requirement. The relevant part of the considerationand findings of the High Court could be usefully reproduced as under: - “5. A perusal of the eviction petition presented before the additionalrent controller would show that the respondent had described herselfas a resident of ground floor of property No.C- 586, Gali No.12,Majlis Park, Delhi-110033, the tenanted portion in possession ofthe petitioner having been described as one room in middle on thefirst floor, in the rear portion of the property. The tenanted premiseswas described to be part of the property bearing No.C-586,reference being made to its graphical depiction in the site plan(Annexure-‘A’) in colour red. The Copy of the site plan, whichwas filed with the eviction petition, it having been captioned asthe site plan of property No.C-586, Gali No.12 & 13, Majlis Park,Delhi-110 033, would show the property to be a three storeyedstructure, there being two bed rooms, one drawing room, atleast A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

three rooms, besides kitchen, toilet, verandah and other areas(courtyard, staircase, etc.) at the ground floor and atleast threerooms on the first floor and the second floor (Ex.PW-1/16).Reliance was also placed on another site plan (Ex.PW-15) whichwould primarily depict the accommodation at the first and the secondfloor level, the said site plan also having been captioned as one ofproperty No.C-586, Gali No.15, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. Forclarity, it may be added here that there was no reference to propertyNo.C-587 in the site plan, the impression thereby created beingthat the entire structure/accommodation depicted therein relatesto property No.C-586 only.

6. The respondent appeared as her own witness (PW-1) and duringher cross-examination, she explained that her husband had passedaway in 1999 and further that she does not have any child of herown, she not even having adopted any child. She, however, soughtto explain in that context that she considered the children of herbrother-in-law (devar) as her own children and that they hadbeen residing with her since the very beginning. This clearly showsimprovement being made over the case as originally set up.

7. Be that as it may, PW-1 in cross-examination stated that shewould not remember as to when she had purchased property No.C-586, Gali No.13, Majlis Park, Delhi. She admitted that GeetaSharma, wife of her brother-in-law (Prem Kumar Sharma) forwhose needs the eviction is sought is owner of property bearingNo.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. She alsoadmitted that Geeta Sharma was residing in her property bearingNo.C-587. It was at that stage that she would add that the plotNo.586 and 587 had been joined for raising a construction of onebuilding and that she and her sister-in-law Geeta Sharma areresiding in that one building as one family.

8. The argument raised against the above backdrop has been thatthe site plans (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6) depict a commonbuilding constructed over two adjoining plots, they bearing No.C- 586 and C-587. This argument cannot be accepted as it is notbased on any pleadings to this effect. On the contrary, in theaverments in the petition it was a clear case of the respondent/landlady that the tenanted portion forms part of property No.C-586, which is depicted in the said site plan filed therewith.

9. Faced with the above argument, the counsel for the respondent/landlord sought to place reliance on pleadings in para 18(a)(ii)where it was, inter alia, mentioned that “as stated above…thefront portion of the property bearing No.C-586/587, GaliNo.12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110003 comprises of only groundfloor and is having two bed rooms, one drawing room, twokitchen, two latrine/bathroom, two small store rooms, onepooja room and one court yard and petitioner is presentlyhaving the aforesaid accommodation in her possession.”

10. It is correct on the part of the petitioner/tenant to argue thatthe pleadings in above nature are misleading. There is no referenceto property No.C-587 in any of the earlier or even in the later partof the eviction petition. Therefore, the pleadings beginning withthe expression “as stated above” were factually incorrect. Therewas no reference made to the right, title or interest of GeetaSharma (wife of brother-in-law) in the property in question or thesame having been built over two adjoining plots of land as acommon super-structure. The respondent/landlady cannot beallowed to make out a new case beyond her own pleadings.

11. For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the respondentlandlady has failed to prove her case of bona fide need.Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 is set aside.Her eviction petition is dismissed.”

8. Both the revision petitions were allowed by the High Court onthe considerations aforesaid and the respective petitions seeking evictionwere accordingly dismissed.

9. Assailing the orders so passed by the High Court, learned counselfor the appellant has strenuously argued that the orders impugned remainunsustainable in law, where the High Court has overstepped its jurisdictionunder Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958. Learned counsel has referredto and relied upon the decision in the case of Abid-ul-Islam v. InderSain Dua: (2022) 6 SCC 30 to submit that the High Court could nothave reversed the findings of the fact recorded by the Rent Controlleras regards the bona fide requirement on the ground of the so-calledmisdescription of the property and without considering the clarificationbefore the Rent Controller and then the findings of the Rent Controller.Learned counsel would submit that the expressions “family” and AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“dependent”, for the purpose of the Act of 1958, and particularly thebona fide requirement, deserve to be construed broadly and liberally soas to include the relatives of the landlord and not strictly to include whollydependent persons only. The learned counsel has referred to and reliedupon the aforesaid decision in the case of Dwarkaprasad.

B10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant wouldsubmit that on a bare perusal of the petition for eviction, it is clear thatthe appellant has not correctly described the location of the suit premisesand then, had attempted to show that the premises were not situated atNo. C-586 but at the front portion of C-586 and C-587. According to thelearned counsel, the appellant had attempted to mislead the Court andChad concealed the facts germane to the present case. It has also beensubmitted that when the brother-in-law of the appellant had sold the suitpremises to the appellant, the bona fide requirement of the family membersof the said brother-in-law of the appellant is obviously non-existent andthe appellant, after having purchased the suit premises from her brother-Din-law, would be rather estopped from claiming bona fide requirementas a ground for eviction of the respondents. It has been contended thatthe findings of the High Court are in accord with the material availableon record which the Rent Controller had totally omitted to consider.

11. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissionsEand having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that theimpugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders of eviction as passedby the Rent Controller deserve to be restored in these cases.

12. In a conspectus of the entire matter, the essential salientfeatures are that the premises in question were let out to the respectiveFtenants for residential purposes. The appellant-landlord is said to be awidowed lady having no issues of her own but residing with her brother-in-law and other members of the family including the wife and childrenof her brother-in- law. The appellant-landlord is said to have acquiredtitle to the property in question on being transferred by her brother-in-law; and has sought eviction of the respective tenants from suit premisesGon the ground that the premises were required bona fide by her for useand occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family. Thepetitions as filed by the appellant-landlord are governed by Section 14(1)(e)of the Act of 1958 that reads as under: - “14.Protectionoftenantagainsteviction.—(1)HNotwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possessionof any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favourof the landlord against a tenant:

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him inthe prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possessionof the premises on one or more of the following grounds only,namely —

*** ******

(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are requiredbona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himselfor for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is theowner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premisesare held and that the landlord or such person has no otherreasonably suitable residential accommodation.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “premiseslet for residential purposes” include any premises which havingbeen let for use as a residence are, without the consent of thelandlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;”

13. As noticed, the Rent Controller accepted the case of theappellant regarding her bona fide requirement and ordered eviction ofthe respective tenants. The orders so passed by the Rent Controllerwere questioned by the tenants in respective revision petitions beforethe High Court. The High Court dealt with the said revision petitions interms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958. The said Section 25-Bprovides special procedure for disposal of the applications for evictionon the ground of bona fide requirement and the revision petition in suchmatters is governed by Sub-section (8) thereof. The relevant provisioncould be usefully extracted as under: - “25-B. Special procedure for the disposal ofapplications for eviction on the ground of bona fiderequirement.—

*** ******

(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order forthe recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controllerin accordance with the procedure specified in this section:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose ofsatisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under thissection is according to law, call for the records of the case andpass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.”

A

14. The contours of the limited jurisdiction under the said SectionB25- B(8) have been delineated and explained by this Court in the case ofAbid-ul-Islam (supra) with reference to several of the past decisionsand in the following terms: - “22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope andambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates adistinct and unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal againstthe order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an applicationfiled under sub-section (5). The intendment of the legislature isvery clear, which is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter,a further second appeal. It is a clear omission that is done by thelegislature consciously through a covenant removing the right oftwo stages of appeals.

C

D

23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Courtexclusive power of revision against an order of the learned RentController, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferiorcourt on the decision-making process, inclusive of proceduralEcompliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substituteand supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising theappellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the processadopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is veryrestrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparentFon the face of the record, which would only mean that in theabsence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should notventure to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding aroving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount toconverting the power of superintendence into that of a regularfirst appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.”

G

15. It does not require much elaboration to say that as regardsprayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the intentionof legislature has specifically been to provide for a distinct and specialprocedure and in that regard, no appeal or second appeal is envisagedagainst the order made by the Rent Controller in accordance with the H

procedure specified in Section 25-B of the Act of 1958. Only in terms ofthe proviso to Section 25-B(8), a limited window is allowed to the extentthat the High Court may call for the record, for the purpose of satisfyingitself that the order had been passed in accordance with law. It is butclear that under the said provision, pure finding of fact is not open forinterference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of law.

16. Having examined the present matters in totality, we areconstrained to observe that the High Court has gone far beyond thelimited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958.A bare look at the consideration of the High Court in the orders impugnedmakes it clear that the so-called want of clear description of the suitpremises as also the identification and extent of the property availablewith the family has formed the principal consideration of the High Court.The High Court has examined the copy of site plan filed with the evictionpetition and its caption describing it as Property No.C-586 with noreference to Property No.C-587. The High Court has noticed that whenbeing cross-examined in relation to the availability of accommodationwith the wife of her brother-in-law, the appellant stated that Plot Nos.586and 587 were joined together for raising construction of one building.Such evidence and the related arguments were found unacceptable bythe High Court for being not based on pleadings. With respect, we areunable to endorse the approach of the High Court.

17. A comprehensive look at the pleadings taken by the appellantalong with the site-plan attached to the petition makes it evident that theappellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodationavailable in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in heroccupation and the nature and extent of her requirement. In the pleadings,it was indeed specified that the appellant was residing on the propertybearing No. “C-586/587”. The pleadings taken by the appellant inparagraph 18(a)(ii) of her petition, of course, begin with the expression“as stated above” and there had not been any earlier mention of propertybearing No. “C-586/587” but, there had been detailed description in thepreceding paragraphs and the site plan was also attached to the petition.The appellant further made the position clear in her cross-examinationthat the building in question was constructed on Plot Nos.586 and 587jointly and she and her sister-in-law were residing in the same buildingas one family.

18. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the same with A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe evidence, it is clear that there had not been any such misdescriptionof the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of theappellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondents-tenants.

19. Noteworthy it is that it had not been the case of the respondentsBthat they were not the tenants in the premises in question. The onlyattempt on the part of the respondents had been to suggest that otherproperties and accommodations were available with the family. Suchsuggestion on the part of respondents had not been accepted by theRent Controller as operating against the assertion of bona fide requirementof the appellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentiallyCbeen the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record. Therewas no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague ground ofwant of clarity about description of the property in question.

20. It is also noteworthy that the case of vast and extensiverequirements, as stated by the appellant and accepted by the RentDController has, as such, neither been negated nor rejected by the HighCourt.

21. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we need not elaborate onthe other aspects as to whether the members of the family of the brother-in- law of the appellant could be taken as her dependents for the purposeEof the eviction in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act of 1958.

22. It would, of course, appear from the material placed on recordthat the appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other referredmembers of the family might be having title or interest in some otherproperties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against theFappellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the RentController on valid grounds and with cogent reasons.

23. Upshot of the discussion is that the findings on bonafiderequirement of the appellant in relation to both these cases could nothave been disturbed by the High Court on a rather nebulous and vagueGground of want of clarity about identification of the property in question.Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the orders ofeviction deserve to be restored.

24. In view of the above, these appeals succeed and are allowed;the impugned orders dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned SingleH

Judge of the High Court in RC. REV. Nos.78 of 2015 and 80 of 2015 areset aside and the respective orders dated 21.11.2014 passed by the RentController in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and 03 of 2011are restored.

A

24.1. However, having regard to the circumstances of the caseand looking to the length of this litigation and the old tenancies, theBrespective respondents are granted time to vacate the suit premises by31.12.2023 on the condition of their depositing the entire due rent beforethe Rent Controller within four weeks from today as also on theirsubmitting usual undertaking before the Rent Controller to continue tomake payment of rent/mesne profits and to vacate the suit premisesCwithin the time granted by this Court and not to assign, sub-let or partwith the same and not to cause prejudice to the appellant-landlord inrelation to the premises in question in any manner.

25. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Ankit Gyan

(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H