Important Point
Pure findings of fact may not be open to be interfered with in Revision u/s. 25B (8) proviso Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. But in a given case (as the instant one) if the finding of fact is given on wrong premise of law, certainly it would be open to the revisional Court to interfere with such a matter.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(e) r/w 25B(8) proviso-Landlord’s suit for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide need under summary procedure-Tenant pleading landlord has alternative suitable accommodation in Subzi Mandi, Delhi which landlord has malafidely not disclosed-Rent Controller found need of landlord for accommodation but dismissed the petition on non-disclosure of alternate accommodation - High Court reversed this finding in Revision u/s. 25B(8) proviso-Whether correct? (Yes, in the facts of this case)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, then necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claims of the landlord. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller. It is no doubt true that the scope of revision petition under Section 25B(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act is very limited one, but even so in examining the legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High Court could examine the facts available in order to find out whether he had correctly or on firm legal basis approached the matters on record to decide the case. Pure findings of fact may not be open to be interfered with, but in a given case the finding of fact is given on a wrong premise of law, certainly it would be open to the revisional court to interfere with such a matter. In this case, the Rent Controller proceeded to analyse the matter that non-disclosure of a particular information was fatal and, therefore, dismissed the claim made by the landlord. It is in these circumstances it became necessary for the High Court to re-examine the matter and then decide the entire question. We do not think that any of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel decides the question of the same nature with which we are concerned. Therefore, detailed reference to them is not required. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. (Paras 11, 12, 13 & 14)

Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-This is a tenant’s appeal arising out of certain proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 258 of the Act seeking for the possession of the house by evicting the appellant as he required the same for his bona fide need and occupation. The appellant before us filed his written statement contending that the landlord has alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he has deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the respondent and this fact of availability of the said premises in Subzi Mandi had not been disclosed in the petition.

2. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller a finding was recorded by him as to the bona fide requirement of the respondent in the following terms:-

“If the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the house in dispute is compared with the extent of the family members of the petitioner excluding of course Kishan Sarup Bhatnagar, the petitioner would be said to be too short of accommodation and if the petitioner does not have any other suitable residential accommodation he should be entitled to an eviction order.

4. On the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full facts necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the Rent Controller noticed that from the evidence recorded, the allegation of respondent No. 1 in the written statement in respect of the accommodation in possession and available to respondent in No. 2772, Subzi Mandi, Delhi stands proved. And, therefore, he has not come to the Court with clean hands. He had suppressed the information which was in his possession as to the availability of the house at Subzi Mandi at the time of filing of the petition and as well as filing of their replication. He surrendered this accommodation only on 21.8.1984, that is, during the pendency of the petition. The Respondent No. 1 has alleged that the appellant shifted to the ground floor of the house in dispute about a year prior to 1.1.1983 and the petition was filed on 24.7.1983. He accepted the stand of the appellant that the respondent had done so with the mala fide intention to evict him.

5. Matter was carried to the High Court in Revision. The High Court agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller as regards bona fide requirement of the landlord-respondent. On the controversy of the non-mentioning of the availability of accommodation at 2772, Subzi Mandi and that there was not true disclosure of the facts, the High Court examined the matter in detail. The High Court noticed that father of the respondent Din Dayal Bhatnagar had rented the premises at 2772, Subzi Mandi from a Trust in the year 1944 and thereafter he was residing in the said premises with his family. Din Dayal Bhatnagar died in the month of August 1980. After his death, Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar, the original petitioner in the eviction petition continued to reside in that accommodation at Subzi Mandi where his father was a tenant. Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar shifted from the said accommodation to the ground floor accommodation when the same became available to him sometime in 1982. The landlord of Subzi Mandi property had served a notice upon the respondent to vacate the premises in the year 1981. The actual possession of the Subzi Mandi house was handed over to the landlord in March 1984 as per receipt at Ex. AW1/1 to AW1/3. The said receipts disclose the name of Din Dayal Bhatnagar though he had demised long back and thus the landlord did not accept or recognize the respondent Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar as a tenant. For about two years prior to the actual handing over of the possession of the premises, the same remained locked and in possession of the respondent, since Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar had shifted to the suit property alo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 896

Cases Referred (4)