1. Eviction proceeding based on bona fide requirement of landlady for business purposes under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 210
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.P.Bharucha
Asram Motors
Versus
Bina Kumari
Case No. : 4030 of 1984
Date of Decision : 2/10/94
The revisional jurisdiction of a High Court allows it to examine the legality and correctness of findings of fact, but it is not a second court of first appeal and need not provide detailed reasons when affirming the findings of lower courts.
Headnote:(A) Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 25 - Eviction of tenant - Bona fide requirement of landlady for business purposes - Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court - Scope of examination - Court of revision is entitled to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order and examine the correctness of findings of fact, though it is not a second court of first appeal. (Para 4)
(B) Revisional Court - When the revisional court agrees with the findings given by the courts below, it is not necessary to go into details of the correctness of the findings of fact, act as a second court of first appeal, or set down detailed reasons for agreeing with those findings. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A tenant was ordered to be evicted on the ground that the landlady bona fide required the premises for conducting her own business. The courts below found that the landlady had no other premises to carry on the business and that the current business location was rented from the tenant. The High Court affirmed these findings in a revisional petition. The tenant contended that the High Court failed to consider that the landlady's joint family owned other available properties.
Findings of Court:
The judgment of the High Court suffers from no infirmity as it acted within the established scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, was required to provide detailed reasons for affirming the findings of the lower courts or to act as a second court of first appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court is not a second court of first appeal; therefore, if it agrees with the findings of the lower courts, it is not required to provide detailed reasons for its agreement or re-examine the facts in detail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the revisional court erred by not considering the availability of other joint family properties and the status of a partition deed. (Para 3 )
3. Revisional courts can examine the correctness of findings of fact but are not second courts of first appeal and need not provide detailed reasons for affirming findings. (Para 4 )
4. A revisional court affirming findings of fact is not required to provide detailed reasons for its agreement with the lower courts' findings. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed; tenant granted time to vacate the premises subject to filing an undertaking. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960?
The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order under revision, which enables it to examine the correctness of findings of fact, although it does not act as a second court of first appeal. (Para 4 )
7. Is a revisional court required to provide detailed reasons when it agrees with the findings of fact reached by the courts below?
No, where the High Court agrees with the findings given by the courts below, it is not necessary to go into the details of the correctness of the findings of fact or set down detailed reasons for agreeing with those findings. (Para 4 )
(1) THE tenant (appellant) has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the landlady (respondent) bona fide requires the premises in occupation of the tenant for the purposes of conducting her own business. The tenant is in appeal by special leave.
(2) THE courts below have found that the landlady does require the premises in the tenants occupation for the purposes of business and that the requirement is bona fide. It has also been found that there is no evidence to show that the landlady owns other premises wherein this business can be carried on and that the place where this business is presently carried on is taken by the appellant on rent. The High court, in a petition filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has affirmed the findings of the court also.
(3) IT is submitted by Mr Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the tenant, that the jurisdiction of the High court under Section 25 is wide and that the High court erred in not considering the contention on behalf of the tenant that the landlady was a member of a joint family which owned several other properties, some of which were available for the purposes of carrying on her business and that a deed of Partition had not in fact been acted upon.
(4) THE High court, in a petition under Section 25 of the said Act, it has been held in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander , is entitled to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order under revision. This jurisdiction "enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of fact also, though the revisional court is not a second court of first appeal". We do not think that the court has failed to act within the four corners which this court set down in Ram Dass case . It is not necessary, where the High court agreed with the findings given by the courts below, to go into details of the correctness of the Findings of fact, act as a second court of first appeal and set down in the judgment detailed reasons for agreeing with those findings, We are satisfied that in the instant case the judgment of the High court suffers from no infirmity and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
(5) BY consent of parties, the tenant-appellant is given time uptil 31/8/1994 to vacate the premises upon condition that a partner of the appellant only authorised in this behalf files the usual undertaking in this court within four weeks from today.
