IMPORTANT POINT
Though another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the lower Courts on that ground.

Headnote:Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 13A1(i)(A)(ii)-Eviction petition under-Appellant-petitioner also enclosed necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was holding a scientific post in Department of BARC-Conclusiveness of facts stated in the Certificate-High Court not justified in going beyond the Certificate and substituting its own reasoning for not accepting the Certificate-High Court was not right in finding fault with the Certificate by pointing out minor mistakes-High Court is not expected to go into the matter as an Appellate Authority reappreciating the evidence-It was not justified in interfering with considered finding of Competent Authority regarding bona fide requirement of the landlady-High Court had a limited revisional jurisdiction-Held, on facts, findings arrived at by Competent Authority on basis of oral evidence could not be said to be perverse or unreasonable requiring High Court to reverse the same.
       Held : that the legislature deviating from the normal procedure otherwise provided in the Act by enabling the aggrieved parties to approach the Appellate Court has provided a limited jurisdiction to the High Court against the order of the Competent Authority. Under this provisions, the High Court is not expected to go into the matter as an Appellate Authority reappreciating the evidence, as has been done by the High Court in the present case. With respect, we may say that the High Court has considered the issue as if it was deciding the original suit. The legislature has expressly provided that any Certificate granted under sub-section (1) of Section 13A1 shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein (vide sub-section (2) extracted above). Nevertheless, the High Court went beyond the Certificate and substituted its own reasoning for not accepting the Certificate. (Para 18)
       Further held that when the three-Judge Bench considered the case, Part IIA was not introduced and, therefore, against the order of the Rent Controller an appeal was provided and further revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was available to the aggrieved parties. Now, by introduction of Part IIA the order of the Competent Authority was to be final subject to revision by the High Court under Section 31F. This should have been borne in mind by the High Court while dealing with the matter in hand, which the High Court failed to do. (Para 21)
       The High Court also was not justified in interfering with the considered finding of the Competent Authority regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlady on the basis of evidence given by her Aunt. The High Court, forgetting that it had a limited revisional jurisdiction, analysed the evidence and substituted its findings in place of the findings of the Competent Authority. On a perusal of the evidence, we find that the findings arrived at by the Competent Authority on the basis of oral evidence cannot be said to be perverse or even unreasonable requiring the High Court to reverse the same. It is well settled that though another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the lower courts on that ground. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-The appellant-landlady, who was successful before the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay, in getting an order of eviction against the respondent-tenant but failed before the High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave challenging the reversing decision of the High Court.

2. The appellant claiming to be the owner of Flat No. 3 situated on the ground floor of building bearing Plot No. 42, the Sindhi Immigrants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur Road, Bombay, preferred an application under Section 13A1 (i)A(ii) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act ) seeking eviction of the tenant (respondent herein) from the said premises. According to the appellant, the plot bearing No. 42 was initially allotted in favour of her mother. Smt. Navabai, wife of Udharam, by the Housing Society. Later on, Moti Ram, brother of the appellant, was accepted as a member of the Housing Society in place of Smt. Navabai. Still later, i.e., some time in November, 1960, the appellant s father Udharam became a member in place of Motiram. The said Motiram constructed the present building consisting of ground, first and second floors in Plot bearing No. 42. On 11.9.69, Udharam died leaving behind three sons and three daughters, including the appellant. On 23.9.69, a Deed of Declaration was executed among the legal heirs of the deceased Udharam whereunder the appellant and one of her brothers, Hiranand were allotted the ground floor. The ground floor itself consisted of four flats. The Housing Society by its Resolution dated 24.9.69 accepted the inter se arrangement as mentioned above. Again on 31.1.88, on being informed, the Housing Society accepted the arrangement reached between the appellant and her brother, Hiranand, whereunder Flat Nos. 1 and 2 of the ground floor were allotted to Hiranand and Flat Nos. 3 and 4 fell to the share of the appellant. Of the four flats on the ground floor at the relevant time. Flat Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of tenants. The respondent was a tenant in Flat No. 3. The appellant was residing along with the family of her brother in Flat No. 1.

3. Finding that it was no longer possible to get on with her sister-in-law, the appellant preferred an application for possession of Flat No. 3 alleging that she being a holder of scientific post in the Department of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (for short BARC) was entitled to invoke Section 13A1 (A) (ii) of the Act. She also enclosed necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was holding a scientific post in the Department of BARC and that she had no other suitable premises for her residence in the local area where the suit premises was situated. It was also claimed by the laim was bona fide and her appellant that her cjoint living with her brother s family was no longer possible for reasons given in the application.

4. The application for eviction was resisted by the respondent. It was alleged in the written statement that the appellant was not the owner of the suit flat, that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between them; that she was not holding a post of Scientific Officer in BARC; that Flat No. 1 on the ground floor was conveniently divided into Flat Nos. 1A and 1B and the appellant was in possession of one of the flats and that, therefore, her claim was not bona fide.

5. Before the Competent Authority, the appellant, besides examining herself, has examined the Assistant Personnel Officer of the BARC to prove the Certificate dated 2.7.88. She also examined the Manager of the Housing Society to support her claim that Flat Nos. 3 and 4 were ultimately allotted to her share under the arrangement between the appellant and her brother. She also examined her Aunt, an old lady of 64 years, to prove that the appellant was not able to get on with her brother s family consisting of her brother, sister-in-law and two college going children and the relationshi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1568

IMPORTANT POINTThough another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the lower Courts on that ground.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Though another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the lower Courts on that ground.