2026 Supreme(SC) 804

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Madan Mohan (Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Thakar Dass (Dead) Thr. Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9237 of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12435 of 2019)
Decided On : 21-07-2026

Revisional jurisdiction prohibits the reversal of concurrent factual findings regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement unless the underlying decision is marked by perversity or clear legal error, as the scope of review does not extend to the reappreciation of evidence or the substitution of judicial findings.

Headnote:(A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Landlord's sincerity - Need for premises must be a genuine, honest requirement as opposed to a mere whim or fancy - Courts must apply a practical approach based on the realities of life to determine if a requirement is real - (Paras 6.1, 7, 8)

(B) Revision - Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review by superior courts - Revisional jurisdiction excludes the reappreciation of evidence or the setting aside of concurrent factual findings unless they suffer from perversity, illegality, or lack of procedural regularity - Interference is impermissible simply because an alternative view of the evidence is possible - (Paras 10.1, 10.2, 10.3)

Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated eviction proceedings on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal usage. Subordinate adjudicating authorities concurrently concluded the requirement to be bona fide and decreed the eviction. A superior reviewing court later reversed these findings, alleging that the landlord lacked clean hands by failing to disclose an additional premises which was occupied by waste, treating the requirement as illusory.

Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of the subordinate courts regarding the necessity of the premises were correctly grounded in the evidence. The reviewing court erred by engaging in a re-evaluation of factual findings which exceeded the limited scope of its authority under the governing civil law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the stated requirement for the premises satisfied the legal standard of being bona fide and whether the superior court acted within its jurisdiction by disturbing concurrent factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for bona fide requirement requires an objective determination of a sincere need rather than a subjective whim. A reviewing court exercising supervisory jurisdiction is prohibited from substituting its own appreciation of facts for that of the trial courts, provided the lower findings are neither perverse nor clearly illegal.

Result: Appeal allowed; eviction decree restored.