IMPORTANT POINT
The present one is an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact on bona fide need of landlord by two Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion on subsequent facts though duly considered by Court below.

Headnote:East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Sections 13(3)(a) and 15(5) -Eviction petition on ground of bona fide need for residential purpose-Decreed by Rent Controller-Upheld by Appellate Authority-But High Court in Revision upset and reversed it taking into account subsequent events and arrived at a different opinion-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right in its approach? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : In the light of the statement of the landlord, as originally recorded and as additionally recorded under the orders of the High Court, indeed a pathetic story of landlord-tenant litigation and law s delays is revealed. A retired government servant, accompanied by his old aged life companion, is shuttling between India and Canada in search of a shelter and settlement in the evening of life so as to peacefully pass the balance of his life and to breathe his last in his own house which is the only property which he had built on his own by investing his earnings and his toil. It is true that the appellant has good number of kith & kin settled in Canada and the thickness of relationship with them tempted him to try a settlement in Canada but his links and moorings in his motherland were not all lost. It is very natural for an ageing Indian to witness his sentiments for the motherland and the birth place gaining more strength and bondage becoming thicker with the advancement in age. His desire to convert the house, which he has built himself, into a home so as to live peacefully therein with his wife cannot be said to be unnatural and certainly not wishful merely or whimsical. (Para 7)
       Simply because a different Judge of Court of facts could have been persuaded to change opinion and draw a different inference from the same set of facts is not the jurisdiction of a revisional authority to upset pure finding of fact. Precedents galore were cited by the learned senior counsel for the parties dealing with jurisdiction of revisional court to interfere with findings of fact. (Para 13)
       We have dealt with each one of the so-called subsequent events brought to the notice of the High Court as also of this Court by the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent. None of them causes a dent in the case of bona fides and need as were found proved by the authorities below the High Court. (Para 15)
       The present, one in our opinion, is an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the two authorities below and that too concurrently, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority restored. An order for recovery of possession over the suit premises, in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, shall follow. The tenant-respondent is allowed four months time for vacating the suit premises and delivering vacant and peaceful possession to the appellant-landlord and in-between clearing and continuing to clear all the arrears of rent subject to his filing usual undertaking within a period of three weeks from today. (Paras 15 and 16)

JUDGEMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-An order for eviction from residential building on the ground of requirement of the landlord for his own occupation passed by the Controller and upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority has been upset and reversed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The aggrieved landlord is in appeal by special leave.

2. Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short) contemplates a landlord making an application to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of residential building if he requires it for his own occupation. The order of the Controller is subject to appeal before Appellate Authority. Under sub-Section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, the High Court is conferred with jurisdiction of calling for and examining the records for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. The High Court may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.

3. The suit premises are a residential building constructed by the landlord-respondent in the year 1961 in the city of Moga. He was a member of Indian Revenue Service. He retired and lived in the suit premises with his wife upto 30.4.1982. On 1.5.1982 he let out a part of the suit premises to the tenant-respondent. The appellant, with all his experience acquired in the services, thought of trying his luck as a consultant advisor in customs and central excise matters and hence shifted to the industrial township of Ludhiana. On 14.6.1991 the landlord initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant-respondent alleging that he had grown old and was not in a position to continue the profession of consultant/advisor. At one time he had a mind of purchasing or renting in suitable accommodation but at the end he had given up the idea and decided finally to settle in Moga and live peacefully in the suit premises of his own. His wife too was in a fragile state of health and Moga provided adequate medical facilities to take care of the wife s health apart from the warmth of affection and nearness of friends and relations and old acquaintances.

4. The suit premises are the only premises owned by the appellant. Admittedly, he has no other premises of his own available for his residence anywhere else.

5. The requirement of the landlord, as pleaded and proved, was found worth entitling the landlord to an order for recovery of possession over the tenanted premises, in the opinion of the two courts below the High Court. By the time the litigation travelled up to the High Court and came to be decided by the impugned order dated 6.7.1999 about 8 years had elapsed in-between. The life of the old retired revenue service personnel had not remained static and underwent several events in pursuit of peace and comfort so imminently needed in the evening of life to a person who had the fortune of having good education and also enjoying status and position in life being a member of All India Services. We would concentrate on dealing with the events which occurred pendente lite and predominantly prevailed with the High Court for reversing the finding of facts as to requirement which, but for those events, probably the High Court would not have been inclined to do. It appears that most of the relations of the appellant-landlord are settled in Canada. The appellant spends time with them and stay quite often at Canada. On 1.11.1986, he acquired status as a permanent resident in Canada. In the year 1995 he has also got Canadian citizenship. In November 1989, he set out an additional portion of the building to the same tenant, i.e. the respondent. On 16.1.1990 and 21.2.1990, the appellant wrote two letters to the tenant respondent which letters spell out the parties negotiating for sale and willingness of the appellant to sell the house to the tenant. Admittedly, the negotiations failed. On 14.6.1991, proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1226

Cases Referred (8)