Important Point
1. For the purpose of applicability of Section 21(1)(h), of the Karnataka Rent Control Act the requirement of the plaintiff-landlord has to be both bona fide and reasonable. If any of these two elements of requirement is missing or both the elements are missing on the facts of the case, no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the landlord under this provision.
2. Under Section 50 of Karnataka Rent Control Act the High Court has jurisdiction to go into the question of correctness of findings of fact reached by the Rent Controller.

Headnote:Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Section 21(1)(h) read with Article 142 of Constitution-Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement-For purpose of applicability of Section 21(1)(h) requirement of plaintiff-landlord has to be both bona fide and reasonable-If any of these two elements of requirement is missing, no decree for possession can be passed in favour of landlord - Tenant occupying portion of ground floor-Landlord in possession and occupation of rest of ground floor and first floor -Trial Court’s finding that existing accommodation insufficient and additional accommodation bona fide-High Court appointing Commissioner for spot investigation-Findings on basis of Commissioner’s report accommodation available with landlord more than sufficient to cater needs of his five children, his widowed mother and eventual guests-Findings and decision warrant no interference-However eviction order passed Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution on basis of undertaking given by tenant offering to vacate premises within four years.
       Held : For the purpose of applicability of Section 21(1)(h), of the Karnataka Rent Control Act the requirement of the plaintiff-landlord has to be both bona fide and reasonable. If any of these two elements of requirement is missing or both the elements are missing on the facts of the case, no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the landlord under this provision. (Para 14)
       Held, on fails, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the aforesaid evidence cannot be said to be suffering from any error. On the contrary, it remains well sustained on record. Consequently, no case is made out by the plaintiff for interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 14)
       (ii) Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Section 50 - Revision-Scope of powers of High Court-High Court in revision under Section is entitled to reappreciate evidence with a view to finding out whether order of Rent Controller was legal or correct-Has jurisdiction to go into question of correctness of findings of fact reached by trial Court.
       Held : A mere look at sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act shows that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, can consider the question whether the order of the Court of Small Causes, with which we are concerned in the present proceedings, was legal or correct. It is obvious that legality of the order of the Small Causes Court which would fall for consideration of the High Court would pertain to errors of law that might have been committed by the said Court. But so far as the correctness is concerned, whether the order sought to be revised was correct on facts or not will also fall for consideration of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that the powers of revision available to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are circumscribed and only errors of jurisdiction if detected from the order sought to be revised can be corrected by the High Court. Even the Statutes conferring powers of revision to the High Court for considering whether the orders of lower courts or authorities are legal or proper, would enable the High Court to exercise jurisdiction that is wider than the one under Section 115 CPC but not so wide as to enable the High Court to correct mere errors of facts. But once the present Act has enabled the High Court to look into the ‘correctness’ of the orders sought to be revised, it cannot be said that the High Court would be disabled from considering the question whether the findings of fact reached by the Court of Small Causes were correct or not in the light of the evidence on record. It is axiomatic that revisional power cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as Court of First Appeal. Still the nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50 of the Act will have to be considered in the light of the express provisions of the Statute conferring such power. On the express language of Section 50, sub-section (1) of the Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of correctness of findings of fact reached by the Court of Small Causes on relevant evidence. (Para 13)

Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.

3. A few relevant facts dealing with this appeal on special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, deserve to be noted at the outset.

Background Facts:

4. The appellant before us is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant. The appellant is the owner of a residential house situated in Indiranagar locality in Bangalore city. The respondent is occupying a part of the ground floor of the said house on a monthly rent of Rs. 170/-. The present proceedings arise out of the suit for possession filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellant as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant in the latter part of this judgment. The case of the plaintiff is that he requires the suit premises in occupation of the defendant, as the present accommodation available to him on the first and the ground floors of the building is not sufficient for accommodating all the members of his family consisting of himself and his wife, his three daughters and a son and also his parents. Invoking Section 21(1)(h) of the Act, proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in the Court of IV Additional Judge of Small Causes, Bangalore. The said provision reads as under:

“21. Protection of tenants against eviction.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord against the tenant;

Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-

xxx xxx xxx

(h) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust, that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust; or......”

5. The case of the plaintiff is to the effect that he is the sole owner of the house including the tenanted premises having bought them in February, 1988 by availing of a housing loan from his present employer-Hindustan Machine Tools International Limited. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, who is occupying a part of the ground floor premises of the said building was an Assistant Engineer with Indian Telephone Industries and was already staying as a tenant when he purchased the property. According to the plaintiff, the accommodation available with him on the first and the ground floors of the building is not sufficient for comfortable stay of all the members of his family and, therefore, the aforesaid suit.

6. The defendant resisted the proceedings and contended that the plaintiff was in possession of substantial portion of the ground floor and was also having in his possession whole of the first floor of the buildings. There were also two rooms available in the compound which were utilised as shops; one of them being let out to a tenant. It was further contended that the plaintiff, his wife and four children were occupying the building in their possession and the accommodation with them was quite sufficient to meet their needs. That the parents of the plaintiff were permanently residing at Mysore and were not staying with the plaintiff. Consequently, their need was wrongly being pressed in service by the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court after recording the evidence offered by the parties, came to the conclusion that the available accommodation with the plaintiff was insufficient for his family and, therefore, his requirement for additional accommodation was genuine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1187

Cases Referred (4)