Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2309 of 2001
PETITIONER:
VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HAJI ISMAIL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2001
BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil.
JUDGMENT:
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Leave granted.
The appellant Vallampati Kalavathi is the landlady of
the building bearing door No.2-11-38-A of Vulli Street,
Vizianagaram, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the
respondent Haji Ismail is the tenant of the said premises.
The appellant filed the petition under section 10 of the
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1960 (for short the Act) seeking eviction of the
tenant on two grounds: (1) that the tenant has committed
default to pay or tender the rent in respect of the said
building in time and (2) that the landlady requires the
premises for shifting her residence to Vizianagaram to
educate her children, a son and a daughter, who are to join
courses there for their higher education. The tenant
refuted the allegations made by the landlady on both the
grounds. He denied that the landlady has any bona fide
requirement for occupying the premises.
The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence
placed on the record, held in favour of the landlady and
ordered eviction of the tenant on both the grounds vide the
order dated 15.4.88 in R.C.C. No.9/82. On appeal, the Rent
Control Appellate Authority on independent appraisal of the
evidence in the case, set aside the finding of the rent
controller regarding default in payment/tender of the rent
but confirmed the finding regarding bona fide requirement of
the landlady and maintained the order of eviction passed by
the rent controller vide the order dated 11.6.97 in RCA
No.15/88.
The tenant filed the civil writ petition No.3126/97 in
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22 of the Act
challenging the order of the Appellate Authority. A single
Judge of the High Court by order dated 25.1.1999 interfered
with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority that the landlady
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
required the premises bona fide for her occupation, set
aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming
the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The said
judgment/order is under challenge in this appeal filed by
special leave.
In the order passed on 26.11.1999 this Court took note
of the contention raised by the senior counsel appearing for
the appellant that the respondent who was the petitioner in
the High Court had not filed any additional affidavit
showing the subsequent events and that the learned Judges
observation at page 4 of the judgment appears to have been
based on the basis of available record before the Courts
below and according to the learned counsel there is nothing
on record to show that after getting the MBBS degree her son
was working elsewhere. In the said order it was also noted
that the case of the landlady on evidence was that her son
wanted to establish his practice in the premises in
question. On the above statement notice was issued in the
case.
The main thrust of the arguments of the counsel for the
appellant was that the High Court committed error in
disturbing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the
landlady bona fide required the house for her occupation for
the purpose of educating her children at Vizianagaram. The
learned counsel further contended that the so called
subsequent developments in the case on the basis of which
the High Court has disturbed the concurrent findings of
fact, are that the daughter of the landlady has been given
in marriage and the son of the landlady has completed his
education are not based on any material on record.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant no
application was filed to bring on record any additional
material relating to the aforementioned matters before the
Rent Controller or even before the Appellate Authority. The
learned counsel for the appellant also raised the contention
that it was not open to the High Court to disturb the
concurrent findings of facts recorded by the forums within
limited scope of revisional jurisdictional vested in it
under Section 22 of the Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
supported the judgment/order of the High Court.
In the year 1982 when the landlady filed the petition
for eviction of the tenant which was registered as RCC
No.9/1982 her son had completed intermediate course and her
daughter was studying in the intermediate class. She had
pleaded that she and her family members intend to shift
residence from Parvatipuram to Vizianagaram with a view to
provide better facilities for higher education to the
children. Since there was delay in getting the possession
of the house the landlady had to send her son to Anakapalli
for studying B.Sc. As the litigation lingered on her son
completed the B.Sc. course and joined MBBS course at
Visakhapatnam and the marriage of the daughter was
performed. As noted earlier, both the Rent Controller and
the Appellate Authority had accepted the case of bona fide
requirement of the landlady of the premises for residential
purpose. Referring to the deposition of the husband of the
landlady who was examined as PW1 the Appellate Authority
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
took note of the fact that the son was studying in 3rd year
Medicine in Visakhapatnam and the daughter was married and
living with her husband. The witness further stated that he
and his wife (landlady) intend to reside in the building in
question and their son intends to set up medical practice at
Vizianagaram and he (witness) also intends to carry on
business there. The Appellate Authority also took note of
the fact that the tenant was not using the premises in
question which is a residential building for residential
purpose but is using it for running cloth business; that he
resides in another building owned by him. On appreciation
of the evidence led by both the parties the Appellate
Authority held that the personal requirement of the house as
pleaded by the landlady is bona fide and genuine.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of
personal requirement of the landlady.
The High Court, as appears from the discussions in the
Judgment, has set aside the concurrent findings of the
Forums below merely taking note of the fact that the son of
the landlady was studying in 3rd year Medicine at
Visakhapatnam and might have completed his MBBS Course in
the meanwhile and that her daughter, after marriage, is
living with her husband.
Taking note of these facts the High Court appears to
have rushed to the conclusion that the requirement of the
landlady for providing facility for higher education to her
children no longer subsists and on that ground set aside the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The
question is since one of the two children of the landlady,
the daughter, has left her parental home for her matrimonial
home and the son is due to complete the MBBS course, can it
be said that the need as pleaded in the petition no longer
subsists? Connected with it is the question whether the
High Court in revision could interfere with the concurrent
findings of fact taking a different view on the materials
which were considered by the Forums below for accepting the
case of the landlady? When the litigation lingers on for
years certain factual developments are bound to take place.
All such developments are not necessarily relevant for
adjudication of the case. No doubt, in proceeding for
eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement
of the landlord sometime subsequent developments may be
relevant to be looked into for enabling the authorities to
make a fair and proper adjudication of the controversy.
While taking note of subsequent developments the
Authorities/Courts should keep in mind whether such material
is relevant and can turn the balance in the case, the
controversy should be decided with reference to the
pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on record.
In the present case, as noted earlier, the husband of the
landlady stated in his deposition that their daughter, after
marriage, was living with her husband and their son was
studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam. Therefore,
this was not a subsequent development which was not
considered by the Rent Controller or the Appellate
Authority. The finding recorded by the High Court in the
revisional proceeding amounts to taking a view different
from those recorded by the Forums below on the evidence
available on the record. Was this permissible within the
purview of the revisional power vested in the High Court
under section 22 of the Act? The said section reads as
follows:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
22. Revision:- (1)The High Court may, at any time, on
the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine
the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken
under this Act by the Controller in execution under Section
15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20,
for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality,
regularity or of propriety of such order or proceeding, and
may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before
the High Court under sub-section (1), shall be in its
discretion.
As the language of the section suggests, the revisional
power vested in the High Court is to be used for the purpose
of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or
propriety of such order or proceeding, and if satisfied that
the order/orders suffer any such vice the High Court may
pass such order in reference to the proceeding as it thinks
fit. The expression legality, regularity or propriety
are undoubtedly wider than mere correction of jurisdictional
error. But even such revisional power cannot be exercised
to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Forums below merely on the ground that the High Court is
inclined to take a different view on the materials on record
in the case. We should not be understood to be saying that
the concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered
with in revision. For such interference it has to be shown
that the findings recorded by the Forums below suffer from
any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or
irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no reasonable
person will come to such conclusion on the materials.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no
hesitation to hold that the case in hand is not such a case.
It follows that the High Court was not right in interfering
with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as
confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the
High Court under challenge is set aside and the
Judgment/order passed by the Rent Controller, at
Vizianagaram dated 15.4.1988 which was confirmed by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority- cum- Subordinate Judge at
Vizianagaram by order dated 11.6.1997 is restored. There
will, however, be no order for costs.