1. Eviction petitions for residential premises on grounds of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 412
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Kusum Lata Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.3111 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 31549 of 2018) With Civil Appeal No.3112 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 31550 of 2018)
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mrs. Prabhati Nayak, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction of tenant – Question of bonafide requirement of landlord cannot be confined to landlord alone and it would include requirement of family members.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B – Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord – Reversal of eviction decree by High Court – Question of bonafide requirement could not be confined to landlord alone and it would include requirement of family members which would include appellant’s brother-in-law, his wife and children as well – Appellant gave out a detailed description of extent of accommodation available in suit property as also accommodation presently in her occupation and nature and extent of her requirement – Findings on bonafide requirement of appellant could not have been disturbed by High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of clarity about identification of property in question – Impugned orders set aside and orders of eviction restored. (Paras 5, 16, 17, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
These appeals, involving similar and common issues, have been considered together and taken up for disposal by this common judgment. Short point arising for determination in these appeals is as to whether the High Court has been justified in reversing the respective orders of eviction passed by Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC.
Findings of Court:
Only attempt on part of respondents had been to suggest that other properties and accommodations were available with family. Such suggestion on part of respondents had not been accepted by Rent Controller as operating against assertion of bona fide requirement of appellant. Such findings of Rent Controller had essentially been the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record. There was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague ground of want of clarity about description of the property in question.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the correctness of property description and the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own findings of fact regarding property description and bona fide requirement. (Para 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
4. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is restrictive, prohibiting the High Court from disturbing pure findings of fact. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. High Court orders set aside and Rent Controller's eviction orders restored, granting tenants a specific timeline to vacate. (Para 24 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958?
The jurisdiction is restrictive and supervisory, ensuring the order is according to law. The High Court cannot act as an appellate court, substitute its views for the Rent Controller's, or disturb pure findings of fact unless they are based on a wrong premise of law. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Does the term family for bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act include near relatives?
Yes, the term family is construed broadly and liberally to include the requirement of family members, such as a brother-in-law and his family, and is not confined strictly to the landlord or wholly dependent persons. (Para 5 , 9 )
8. Does a lack of clarity in the description of the suit property necessarily negate a claim of bona fide requirement?
Not if the pleadings, read as a whole with the evidence and site plans, provide a detailed description that does not cause material prejudice to the tenants or constitute a material flaw in the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against similar orders dated 17.04.2018, as passed in RC. REV. No. 78 of 2015 and RC. REV. No. 80 of 2015 respectively, whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, 1 [Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the High Court’], has allowed the revision petitions filed by the respective tenants and has reversed the similar orders dated 21.11.2014, as passed in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and 03 of 2011 by the Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini, Delhi, 2 [Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’]. These appeals, involving similar and common issues, have been considered together and taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 3 [It may be pointed that in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 31550 of 2018 (relating to RC. REV. No. 80 of 2015 before the High Court), the respondent-tenant had expired during the pendency of the petition in this Court and after setting aside abatement, his legal representatives were brought on record by the order dated 09.12.2019.].
3. The learned Rent Controller, in the similar orders dated 21.11.2014, had accepted the petitions for eviction filed by the present appellant against the respective tenants, on the ground of her bona fide requirement. However, in the impugned orders dated 17.04.2018, the High Court has reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, essentially on the ground that the appellant-landlord had not been forthright in description of the property in question and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner about the facts concerning right, title and interest of the wife of his brother-in-law in the property in question and about the fact that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots as a common superstructure.
4. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the short point arising for determination in these appeals is as to whether the High Court has been justified in reversing the respective orders of eviction. The factual aspects pertaining to both these cases lie in a narrow compass and could be noticed as follows:
4.1. In the petition bearing No. 02 of 2011, the appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant with the averments that the respondent was inducted as tenant by her predecessor in the year 1995 at the rent of Rs. 1200/- per month in one room on the first floor of the property bearing No. C-586, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi – 110033. The appellant also stated that the current monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 2100/- but, the tenant had not paid the rent since 01.06.2010.
4.2. The description of the property by the appellant in her petitions seeking eviction has formed the basis of the view of the High Court about want of forthrightness on her part. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant parts of the pleadings taken by the appellant in that regard, which read as under: -
“18. (a) The grounds on which the eviction of the tenant is sought:-
i) Petitioner and her family are presently residing in the ground floor of aforesaid property and the accommodation presently available with the petitioner is totally insufficient for them and for the family members, who are dependent upon them for their residence. Petitioner resides in a joint family which comprises of her husband's real brother (=Brother in law), his wife, 2 unmarried daughters, 1 married daughter and 1 son and she considers family of her brother in law as her own family. Entire family of the petitioner needs at least 5 bed rooms, 2 drawing rooms, 2 kitchen, 3 toilets, 3 bathrooms, 1 pooja room, 1 guest room, 1 verandah and a servant quarter. Petitioner also requires two rooms with 1 toilet, kitchen and verandah for opening of 'Play-way' by third daughter of her brother in law, Ms. Charu Sharma. However, accommodation presently available with the petitioner is only 2 bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens, 2 latrine/bathroom, 2 s
