9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against eviction under East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 - Bonafide requirement of landlords for additional accommodation - Revisional powers of the High Court to interfere with findings of fact - Reappraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction - Consideration of subsequent events in deciding eviction cases Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a tenant contesting eviction proceedings under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949. The tenant was in possession of a portion of a building and the landlords, four brothers, sought eviction for their bonafide requirement of additional accommodation due to their family size and needs. 2. The tenant contested the claim, alleging that the landlords' need was fictitious and collusive. The Rent Controller initially granted possession to the landlords, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision. However, the High Court, in revision, upheld the eviction order, leading to the tenant appealing to the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court considered two main contentions raised by the appellant's counsel. Firstly, the scope of revisional powers of the High Court to interfere with findings of fact was discussed. The Court clarified that under Section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court had the authority to examine the legality and propriety of the order under revision, including revisiting findings of fact if necessary. 4. Secondly, the Court analyzed the bonafide requirement of the landlords for additional accommodation. It emphasized that the landlord's need must be genuine, honest, and reasonable to satisfy statutory conditions for eviction. The subjective desire for possession must also have an objective element of actual need, considering all relevant circumstances. 5. The High Court's decision to consider subsequent events and reappraise the evidence regarding the landlords' requirement was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that such cautious consideration of post-eviction application events was permissible to ensure the relief granted was appropriate. 6. The appellant filed a motion to introduce subsequent events, involving the sale of a residential building to one of the landlords' wives. However, the Court found that this event did not impact the need for additional accommodation, and the eviction order was justified based on the landlords' genuine requirement. 7. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs, affirming the eviction order in favor of the landlords based on their bonafide requirement for additional accommodation.
|
