1999 Supreme(SC) 781

1999(6) Supreme 330
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
V. N. Khare & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Shiv Sarup Gupta -Appellant
versus
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2666 of 1999)
Decided on 30-7-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Syamla Pappu, Sr. Advocate, R. Krishnamoorthi, Ajay Agarwal, Dharam Bir Vohra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, Amir Singh Pasrich, Mahesh Prasad, Ms. Nandini Gore, Advocates.

Important Points
1. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts.
2. The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.
3. An alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 25-B(8)-Revision-Scope of jurisdiction of High Court-Revisional jurisdiction exercisable by High Court u/s 25-B(8) is not so limited as is u/s 115 CPC nor so wide as that of appellate Court-Re-appre­ciation of evidence not permissible merely because High Court is inclined to take a different view of the facts-For purpose of ascertaining whether conclusion arrived at by Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or not on material available High Court can enter into reappraisal of evidence.

       Held : Section 25-B is a self-contained provision in the sense that remedy against an order passed by the Rent Controller thereunder is also provided by that provision itself. Sub-section (8) provides that no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25-B; ‘provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law (or not), call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit’. The phraseology of the provision as reproduced hereinbefore provides an interesting reading placed in juxtaposition with the phraseology employed by the Legislature in drafting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the subordinate court having committed one of the three errors, namely (i) having exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) having failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity. Under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B, the expression governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is ‘for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the Controller is according to law’. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appre­ciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of ‘whether it is according to law’. For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray the lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller ‘not according to law’ calling for an interference under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. (Para 10)

       (ii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Bona fide requirement-Connotation of-Factors to determine bona fide requirement-Concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instruc­ted by realities of life-Court’s duty while drawing an inference to consider tenant s plea of availability of an alternate residential accommodation with the landlord.

       Held : A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession of any premises by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is permissible on one or more of the specified grounds. One such ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bona fide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words ‘need’ and ‘require’ both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding fulfilment. ‘Need’ or ‘requirement’ qualified by word ‘bona fide’ or ‘genuine’ preceding as an adjective - is an expression often used in Rent Control Laws. ‘Bona fide or genuine need’ of the landlord or that the landlord ‘genuinely requires’ or ‘requires bona fide’ an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two ex­pressions are interchangeable in practise and carry the same meaning. (Para 11)

       Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean ‘in good faith : genuine’. The word ‘genuine’ means ‘natural : not spurious : real: pure: sincere’. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bona fide to mean ‘good faith, without fraud or deceit’. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by ‘requires’ is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase ‘requir­ed bonafide’ is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself-whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. (Para 12)

       The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of non-availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come. (Para 13)

       If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself lightly into lesser premises protecting the tenant’s occupancy. (Para 21)

       (iii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 1, Rule 27-Addi­tional evidence at appellate stage-Documents filed to bring to notice of High Court subsequent events-Court took into consideration contents of documents without formally admitting same inevidence and affording parties opportunity of adducing evidence in proof and disproof thereof-Not justified. (Para 21)