IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of facts by first appellate court are usually binding on the High Court. Interference is permissible only in case findings are perverse or de hors provision of law or recorded contrary to pleadings and evidence on record.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Revision – Finding of facts by first appellate court – Usually binding on High Court – Interference permissible only in case findings are perverse or de hors provision of law or recorded contrary to pleadings and evidence on record. (Para 26, 27)
       (b) Administration of justice – Appellate court recording its findings based on proper appreciation of evidence – Findings consistent with requirement of law applicability of the provisions of the Act – No infirmity in the findings – Decree passed for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit against the defendant in relation to suit house – Not warranting any interference. (Para 28)
       (1960) 2 SCR 896; (1962) 2 SCR 159 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       One Bai Zaverben, widow of Chhaganbhai Govindbhai Patel was the owner of the suit house. She had let out the suit house to one Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai as her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3/-. He had also executed rent note in her favour. Bai Zaverben died in 1977. She had, however, executed a will in favour of one Kalidas Chunnilal Patel (the appellant herein-since dead and represented by his legal representatives) bequeathing the suit house to him. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel thus became the sole owner of the suit house.
       Kalidas Chunnilal Patel filed a Regular Civil Suit against Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai claiming a money decree to recover Rs.94/-towards the arrears of rent for the period 26.04.1976 to 06.12.1978, notice charges Rs.13/-and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3/- per month from 06.12.1978. The plaintiff also claimed eviction of the defendant from the suit house on the ground of his personal need for residence.
       During the pendency of the suit, the State Government issued a notification whereby the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act were extended and made applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. In other words, on and after 03.04.1980, the rights of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit house were to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
       The Trial Court passed money decree towards arrears of rent, notice charges and mesne profits and further passed the decree for possession against the defendant in relation to the suit house.
       The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment/decree of the Trial Court though on different reasoning of its own.
       The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment/order of the first appellate Court and remanded the case to the appellate Court with directions.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

(1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.06.2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Civil Revision Application No. 110 of 1994 whereby the High Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondents herein and quashed the judgment/order dated 12.10.1993 passed by the District Judge, Bharuch in Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1982 and remanded the same to the District Judge, Bharuch.

(2) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal, few facts need mention.

(3) The appellants are the plaintiffs-landlord whereas the respondents are the defendants-tenant.

(4) The suit house is situated in village Sachan, Taluka Wagra, District Bharuch. One Bai Zaverben, widow of Chhaganbhai Govindbhai Patel was the owner of the suit house. She had let out the suit house to one Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai as her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3/-. He had also executed rent note in her favour. Bai Zaverben died in 1977. She had, however, executed a will in favour of one Kalidas Chunnilal Patel (the appellant herein-since dead and represented by his legal representatives) bequeathing the suit house to him. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel thus became the sole owner of the suit house on the strength of will after her death. The name of Kalidas Chunnilal Patel was accordingly mutated in revenue records as owner of the suit house. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel, by operation of law, then became landlord of the suit house

(5) On 06.12.1978, Kalidas Chunnilal Patel served a legal notice to Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai demanding arrears of rent from 26.04.1976 to 06.12.1978 alleging that after the death of Bai Zaverben, he has not paid any rent to him. Kalidas Chunnilal Patel also demanded possession of the suit house alleging therein that he genuinely required the suit house for his personal residence. It was also stated that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) does not apply to the suit house. Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai, on receipt of the notice, denied the allegations made therein by sending his reply.

(6) This led to filing of the civil suit by Kalidas Chunnilal Patel being Regular Civil Suit No. 183 of 1979 against Ranchhodbhai Govindbhai in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bharuch at Bharuch claiming a money decree to recover Rs.94/-towards the arrears of rent for the period 26.04.1976 to 06.12.1978, notice charges Rs.13/-and mesne profit at the rate of Rs.3/- per month from 06.12.1978. The plaintiff also claimed eviction of the defendant from the suit house on the ground of his personal need for residence. The defendant denied the plaint averments.

(7) It may here be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit, the State Government issued a notification on 03.04.1980 under Section 2(3) and Section 6(1A) of the Act whereby the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act were extended and made applicable to the area where the suit house was situated. In other words, on and after 03.04.1980, the rights of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit house were to be governed by the provisions of the Act.

(8) The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed issues. These issues were,

“(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 20.7.70?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he requires the suit premises for his bona fide use and occupation?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has become the owner of the suit premises?

(4) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff has filed this suit only out of malice because of their strained social relations?

(5) Whether the defendant proves that he has paid up the rent upto 2.9.78 but he has not given any receipts?

(6) Whether the defendant proves that greater hardship would be caused to him if the decree for possession is granted?

(7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession?

(8) What amount, if any, the plaintiff is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 494

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.Kalidas Chunilal Patel (Dead) by L.Rs. – AppellantVersusSavitaben & Ors. – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO.5674 OF 2007Decided on : 29-6-2016

IMPORTANT POINTFinding of facts by first appellate court are usually binding on the High Court. Interference is permissible only in case findings are perverse or de hors provision of law or recorded contrary to pleadings and evidence on record.

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Kalidas Chunilal Patel (Dead) by L.Rs. – Appellant
Versus
Savitaben & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5674 OF 2007
Decided on : 29-6-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of facts by first appellate court are usually binding on the High Court. Interference is permissible only in case findings are perverse or de hors provision of law or recorded contrary to pleadings and evidence on record.