Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K.URMILA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM KUMAR VERMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/02/1998
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR A HMAD, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao
Ms. Usha Reddy, Adv. for the appellants.
Chaitanya Sidharth and R.C.Verma, Advs. for the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment of
the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in Civil Revision Petition No. 56 of 1994 dated 6.3.1997. By
that judgment, the learned Single Judge reversed the
concurrent findings of the appellate authority as well as
the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction petition in
favour of the respondent-landlord.
The eviction application was filed by the respondent
against appellants in the year 1985 on three grounds namely
wilful default, bonafide requirement for self-occupation and
sub-letting. The learned Rent Controller by his judgment
dated 31.7.1988 dismissed the eviction application.
On appeal by the landlord the appeliate authority again
framed three points for consideration namely with regard to
wilful default, bonafide requirement and sub-letting and
came to the conclusion that none of the grounds was proved.
In the result, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed on
20.9.1993.
The landlord then filed revision in the High Court. It
was merely observed by the High Court as follows:
"Having gone through the orders of
the courts below, I feel that the
courts that the petitioner has not
made out his bonafide requirement
and that his bonafide requirement
is arbitrary. There is evidence to
show that the landlord requires the
premises in question for starting
his business. Hence both the orders
under revision deserve to be set
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
aside. Accordingly they are set
aside."
Having held so, the learned Judge granted two years
time i.e. upto 6.3.1989 for vacation.
In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel
for the tenant that the High Court has not considered and
discussed the relevant evidence on the basis of which the
Rent Controller and the appellate authority had held that
the landlord had not established his bonafide requirement.
On the other hand, it is contended for the respondent-
landlord that this case is not a fit one for interference by
this Court.
We are of the view that the High Court while reversing
the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the
Rent Controller ought to have considered and discussed the
evidence on which the said authorities had held against the
landlord. It was not sufficient for the High Court merely to
sate that there was evidence to show that the bonafides of
the landlord was proved. We are, therefore, constrained to
set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the same
to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law as
early as possible. Appeal allowed and the matter remanded to
the High Court accordingly.