1. Eviction application on grounds of wilful default, bona fide requirement, and sub-letting — concurrent findings by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority against the landlord. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 222
1998(2) Supreme 22
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.Saghir Ahmed & M.Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
K. Urmila & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Ram Kumar Verma -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 841 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13587 of 1997)
Decided on 17-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Usha Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Chaitanya Sidharth and R.C. Verma, Advocates.
Important Points
A High Court, when reversing concurrent findings of lower authorities, must consider and discuss the evidence upon which those authorities based their decisions. It is insufficient to merely state that evidence exists to prove a claim without addressing the reasoning of the lower courts.
Subject
Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement
Act Referred
Headnote
A.P. Rent Act-Eviction petition on grounds of wilful default, bonafide requirement and subletting-Petition dismissed by Rent Controller-Appeal was also dismissed-Concurrent findings reversed by High Court in revision and eviction order passed on ground of bonafide need-High Court did not discuss evidence to arrive a finding that bonafides of landlord was proved-Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Held : We are of the view that the High Court while reversing the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller ought to have considered and discussed the evidence on which the said authorities had held against the landlord. It was not sufficient for the High Court merely to state that there was evidence to show that the bonafides of the landlord was proved. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the same to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Tenant contends High Court ignored evidence supporting concurrent findings — Landlord argues the case does not warrant interference. (Para 6 )
3. High Court erred by reversing concurrent findings without discussing the evidence relied upon by lower authorities, merely stating that evidence of bona fides existed. (Para 7 )
4. A revisional court reversing concurrent findings of lower authorities must consider and discuss the evidence on which those authorities based their decisions. (Para 7 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 7 )
6. What is the requirement for a High Court when reversing concurrent findings of lower authorities in a revision petition?
The High Court must consider and discuss the evidence on which the lower authorities based their findings; it is insufficient to merely state that evidence exists to prove the party's case. (Para 7 )
Judgment
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 56 of 1994 dated 6.3.1997. By that judgment, the learned Single Judge reversed the concurrent findings of the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction petition in favour of the respondent - landlord.
3. The eviction application was filed by the respondent against appellants in the year 1985 on three grounds namely wilful default, bonafide requirement for self-occupation and sub-letting. The learned Rent Controller by his judgment dated 31.7.1988 dismissed the eviction application.
4. On appeal by the landlord the appellate authority again framed three points for consideration namely with regard to wilful default, bonafide requirement and subletting and came to the conclusion that none of the grounds was proved. In the result, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed on 20.9.1993.
5. The landlord then filed revision in the High Court. It was merely observed by the High Court as follows :
“Having gone through the orders of the courts below, I feel that the courts below erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out his bonafide requirement and that his bonafide requirement is arbitrary. There is evidence to show that the landlord requires the premises in question for starting his business. Hence both the orders under revision deserve to be set aside. Accordingly they are set aside.”
Having held so, the learned Judge granted two years time i.e. upto 6.3.1989 for vacation.
6. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the tenant that the High Court has not considered and discussed the relevant evidence on the basis of which the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had held that the landlord had not established his bonafide requirement. On the other hand, it is contended for the respondent - landlord that this case is not a fit one for interference by this Court.
7. We are of the view that the High Court while reversing the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller ought to have considered and discussed the evidence on which the said authorities had held against the landlord. It was not sufficient for the High Court merely to state that there was evidence to show that the bonafides of the landlord was proved. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the same to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law as early as possible. Appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the High Court accordingly.
***********
