1. Eviction petition under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 — Wilful default in rent — Bona fide requirement of premises. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1696
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Abdul Nazeer, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Mohammed Sadiq – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Manglani – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 8028 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s). 18654 of 2018)
Decided On : 01-11-2022
Important Points
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence in landlord-tenant disputes and clarified that pursuing higher studies does not negate the bona fide requirement for own use.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord-Tenant Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
Eviction - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Section 22
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the premises for own use. The High Court set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the eviction order was found to be unsustainable and was set aside by the Supreme Court. The tenant was given six months to vacate the property.
Issues: Dispute over the agreed monthly rent and the bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlord's own use.
Ratio Decidendi: The letter of Attornment of Tenancy was held to be sufficient evidence of the agreed monthly rent, and pursuing higher studies does not bar someone from starting a business.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority was restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Santanu Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Praveen Gaur, Advocate, Ms. Baani Khanna, Advocate, Mr. karan Mamgain, Advocate, Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Advocate, Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Advocate, Mr. Mohit A., Advocate, For the Respondent.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Santanu Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Praveen Gaur, Advocate, Ms. Baani Khanna, Advocate, Mr. karan Mamgain, Advocate, Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Advocate, Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Dey, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Advocate, Mr. Mohit A., Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over agreed monthly rent and whether pursuing higher studies precludes a bona fide requirement for starting a business. (Para 6 , 9 )
3. Rent Controller proceedings are summary; letter of attornment suffices to prove rent; pursuing studies does not bar starting a business; revision jurisdiction is limited. (Para 8 , 10 )
4. In summary rent control proceedings, a letter of attornment is sufficient to prove rent; pursuing higher studies does not negate bona fide requirement for business. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Eviction order restored — Tenant directed to vacate within six months. (Para 11 )
6. Can a letter of attornment be used to prove the agreed monthly rent in rent control proceedings?
Yes. Since proceedings before the Rent Controller are summary in nature, a letter of attornment of tenancy addressed to the tenant is sufficient to prove the agreed monthly rent. (Para 8 )
7. Does the fact that a person is pursuing higher studies preclude a bona fide requirement for the premises to start a business?
No. There is no legal bar preventing an individual who is pursuing higher studies from starting a business; therefore, such a fact does not render the requirement non-bona fide. (Para 10 )
8. What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in a revision petition under rent control legislation?
The jurisdiction of the High Court in a revision petition is limited, and it should not improperly reverse findings of fact unless they are unsustainable. (Para 10 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh allowing the revision petition filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act') and the setting aside an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord is before us in the above Appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
4. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on two grounds namely: (1) wilful default in payment of rent; (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the own use of the landlord.
5. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and ordered eviction. In a revision filed by the tenant under Section 22 of the Act, the High Court has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority, forcing the landlord to come up with the above Appeal.
6. Insofar as the first ground on which the eviction was sought is concerned, there was a dispute as to what the agreed monthly rent was. While the appellant-landlord claimed that the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 3,200/-, the respondent-tenant claimed that the agreed rent was Rs. 1,600/- per month.
7. The appellant who purchased the property from the previous owner in September 2013, relied upon a letter of Attornment of Tenancy issued by the erstwhile landlord, indicating the monthly rent to be Rs. 3,200/. Unfortunately, the High Court held that this letter of Attornment of Tenancy was not sufficient to prove the monthly rent to be Rs. 3,200/-. The High Court felt that the previous landowner ought to have been examined by the appellant in this regard.
8. But we do not agree. The proceedings before the Rent Controller are summary in nature. The purchase of the building by the appellant in September 2013 is not disputed. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to rely upon the letter of Attornment of Tenancy. In fact the letter of Attornment of Tenancy is addressed to the respondent-tenant with a copy marked to the appellant. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in reversing the finding given by the Appellate Authority in this regard.
9. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Appellate Authority found that the appellant was carrying on business and that he had children for whom he wanted to set-up a business. On the ground that the eldest son of the appellant was still pursuing studies, the High Court held that the requirement of the appellant was not bona fide.
10. Again we do not agree with the aforesaid finding. There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business. The High Court, for a moment did not realize that it was dealing with a revision, where its jurisdiction was limited.
11. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the High Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the above appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is restored. The tenant is given six months' time from today to vacate the property and handover the vacant possession.
