Nanak Chand v. Inderjit, (SC)
BS31488
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami and A.N. Grover, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1419 of 1966. D/d.
9.9.1969
Nanak Chand - Appellant
Versus
Inderjit - Respondents
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 15(5) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 115 Power of High Court to reverse the finding of appellate authority on question of fact - Held, revisional power of High Court under Section 15(5) of Rent Act is wider than that conferred by Section 115, Civil Procedure Code 1962(1) Supp. S.C.R. 933 Distinguished.
Landlord filed an application for ejectment of tenant on ground of personal necessity. The application was rejected by the Rent Controller on the ground that accommodation already in occupation of the landlord was sufficient for his requirement - The appeal of the landlord was also rejected by the appellate authority. The High Court, however, reversed the finding of the appellate authority holding that there was sufficient reason for the landlord to vacate the premises already occupied by him and live in the premises sought to be vacated. It was contended that High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question of insufficiency of accommodation which question had been decided by the appellate authority after examining the evidence.
Held, The revisional power conferred on the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act is wider than that conferred by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 15(5) of the Act the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the finding by the Authorities about the requirement of the landlord under Section 13(3)(a)(i).
[Para 4]
Cases Referred :-
M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, ILR 1958(2) Punjab 406.
Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Choudhary, 1962(1) Supp. S.C.R. 933.
JUDGMENT
V. Ramaswami, J. - This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated April 4, 1965 in Civil Revision No. 309 of 1965 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition of respondent No. 1 and ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises in dispute.
2. The appellant is a tenant of a residential house situated in Abohar Mandi for about 25 years. The previous landlord was a relation of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 the present landlord, purchased the premises on April 25, 1960. The respondent No. 1 filed an application on February 16, 1963 for ejectment of the appellant on two grounds :-
(1) that the appellant-tenant had sublet a portion of the house and (2) that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller rejected both the contentions and dismissed the application of respondent No. 1. Against the judgment of the Rent Controller the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority who by his judgment dated December 17, 1964 dismissed the appeal. Respondent No. 1 thereafter presented a revision petition before the Punjab High Court which allowed the revision petition and ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 required the premises bonafide for his personal use.
Section 13(3)(i)(a), (b) and (c) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act III of 1949) (hereafter called the Act) states -
"A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession -
(1) in the case of a residential building, if -
(a) he requires it for his own occupation;
(b) he is not occupying another residential building in the Urban area concerned; and
(c) he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area,"
Section 15(5) of the Act states -
"The High Court may, at any time on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereof as it may deem fit."
3. In support of this appeal it was argued in the first place that the High Court committed an error of law when it took into consideration the insufficiency of the premises already occupied by the landlord in the urban area concerned. In this connection the High Court has pointed out that the landlord had been occupying only three rooms and a bath room and he was using one room as a kitchen. He had an aged mother living with him and he had a conveyance in the shape of a motor cycle. The landlord purchased the disputed premises on April 25, 1960 for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. The High Court has taken the view that there was sufficient reason for the landlord to vacate the premises already occupied by him and seek to live in premises that had been purchased by him. In support of this view the High Court referred to the decision of Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in M/s. Sant Ram Des Raj v. Karam Chand, ILR 1958(2) Punjab 406 in which it was held that if a landlord establishes that he had made his application for eviction of his tenant in good faith and that he required the premises for his own occupation and further that the premises already in his occupation did not meet his requirements and needs, he was entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13(3)(i)(a) of the Act. It was contended by Mr. Naunit Lal that the decision of the Full Bench required reconsideration. But no such point was taken up in the High Court and we see no reason for entertaining this argument for the first time in this appeal.
4. It was then contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the premises already in occupation of the landlord was insufficient. It was pointed out that the appellate authority had examined the evidence and found that from the point of view of social habits and the status and nature of his duties, the landlord could not reasonably require more accommodation than the three rooms in addition to the bath room. The High Court has however, taken a different view and held that the premises already occupied by the landlord was insufficient. We are unable to accept the argument that the High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding of the Appellate Authority on this point. The revisional power conferred on the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act is wider than that conferred by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under Section 15(5) of the Act the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the finding by the Authorities about the requirement of the landlord under Section 13(3)(a)(i). Reference was made on behalf of the appellant to the decision of this Court in Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Choudhary, 1962(1) Supp. S.C.R. 933 wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers was not entitled to re-assess the value of the evidence and to substitute its own conclusions of fact in place of those reached by the courts below. But the revisional power of the High Court in that case was exercised under Section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. 38 of 1952) which is different in language from Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 with which we are concerned in the present case.
5. For these reasons we hold that this appeal fails and must be dismissed. There will be no order with regard to the costs of this appeal.
Annual dismissed.