Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(SC) 1202

2008(6) Supreme 175
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Sunil Kumar & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Anil Kumar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4943 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2648 of 2007)
Decided on : 08-08-08

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Arvind Minocha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Dinesh Verma, Rajat Sharma and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocate.

Important Point
Concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with when nothing was produced on record to satisfy that said concurrent findings of fact, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.

Headnote:Rent law – Eviction Petition – Respondent filed an application for ejectment of appellant from demised premises on ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide requirement – Rent Controller while rejecting claim of respondent for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent, subletting, allowed eviction against appellant on ground of bonafide requirement – Appeal – Dismissed by Appellate Authority – Revision case – Dismissed on ground that there was no perversity or infirmity in orders of Tribunals below-Appeal – Nothing produced on record to satisfy that concurrent findings of fact, as affirmed by High Court, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity – No ground to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7)
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Respondent herein in the instant case had filed an application for ejectment of appellant from demised premises on ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide requirement. Rent Controller while rejecting claim of respondent for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent, subletting, allowed eviction against appellant on ground of bonafide requirement. Appeal thereagainst was dismissed by Appellate Authority. Revision case thereagainst was also dismissed on ground that nothing was produced on record to satisfy that concurrent findings of fact, as affirmed by High Court, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Nothing was produced on record to satisfy that concurrent findings of fact, as affirmed by High Court, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity. Hence held that there was no ground to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Order

1.Leave granted.

2.This appeal is directed against the Judgment and final Order dated 1st of December, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 6420 of 2006, by which the High Court had dismissed the Civil Revision case in limine.

3.The respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide requirement of the demised premises before the Rent Controller.

4.The learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the respondent for eviction on the ground of non-payment of the rent, subletting but on the ground of bonafide requirement, he had allowed the eviction against the appellant.

5.Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the learned Rent Controller, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jallandhar and the Appellate Authority, by its Judgment dated 15th of November, 2006 dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

6.Against the aforesaid Orders of the Appellate Authority as well as of the Rent Controller, the appellant filed a Civil Revision case, as mentioned herein. By the impugned Order, the said Revision case was also dismissed on the ground that there was no perversity or infirmity in the Orders of the Tribunals below. Before us also, the learned counsel could not satisfy that the concurrent findings of fact, as affirmed by the High Court, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.

7.Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact. The appeal is thus dismissed.

8.We direct that the appellant shall be permitted to keep the premises in question for a further period of nine months from this date subject to filing the usual undertaking in this court within four weeks from today and on expiry of this period, he shall vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent. No Order as to costs.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1202

2008(6) Supreme 175Supreme Court of indiaTarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.Sunil Kumar & Anr. — AppellantsversusAnil Kumar — RespondentCivil Appeal No. 4943 of 2008(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2648 of 2007)Decided on : 08-08-08

Important PointConcurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with when nothing was produced on record to satisfy that said concurrent findings of fact, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.

2008(6) Supreme 175
Supreme Court of india
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Sunil Kumar & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Anil Kumar — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4943 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2648 of 2007)
Decided on : 08-08-08

Important Point
Concurrent findings of fact could not be interfered with when nothing was produced on record to satisfy that said concurrent findings of fact, were vitiated by infirmity or perversity.