Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
MISS KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI C.K.S.RAO
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1997
BENCH:
A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami
Harish Salve, Sr.Adv., C.K.Sasi, Kailash Vasdev, Advs. with
him for the appellant
R.S.Hegde, and K.R.Nagraja, Advs. for the Respondent
J U D G E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
K. Venkataswami. J.
The appellant-landlady. who was successful before the
Competent Authority. Konkan Division, Bombay, in getting an
order of eviction against the respondent-tenant but failed
before the High Court. has filed this appeal by special
leave challenging the reversing decision of the High Court.
The appellant claiming to be the owner of Flat No.3
situated on the ground floor of building bearing Plot No.
42. The Sindhi Immigrants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Chamber Road, Bombay, preferred an application under Section
13A1 (i)A(ii) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’)
seeking eviction of the tenant (respondent herein) from the
said premises. According to the appellant. the plot bearing
No. 42 was initially allotted in favour of her mother. Smt.
Navabat. wife of Udharam, by the Housing Society Later on.
Moti Ram, brother of the appellant, was accepted as a member
of the Housing Society in place of Smt. Navabai, Still
later, i.e.. some time in November, 1960, the appellant’s
father Udharam became a member in place of Motiram. The said
Motiram constructed the present building consisting of
ground, first and second floors in Plot bearing No. 42. On
11.9.69. Udharam died leaving behind three sons and three
daughters. including the appellant. On 23.9.69. A Deed of
Declaration was executed among the legal heirs of the
deceased Udharam whereunder the appellant and one of her
brothers, Hiranand were allotted the ground floor. The
ground floor itself consisted of four flats. The Housing
Society by its Resolution dated 24.9.69 accepted the inter
se arrangement as mentioned above. Again on 31.1.88. on
being informed, the Housing Society accepted the arrangement
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
reached between the appellant and her brother. Hiranand,
whereunder Flat Nos. 1 and 2 of the around floor were
allotted to Hiranand and Flat Nos. 3 and 4 fell to the share
of the appellant. Of the four flats on the ground floor at
the relevant time. Flat Nos.2 to 4 were in possession of
tenants. The respondent was tenant in Flat No.3. The
appellant was residing along with the family of her brother
in Flat No.1.
Finding that it was no longer possible to get on with
her sister-in-law, the appellant preferred an application
for possession of Flat No.3 alleging that she being a holder
of scientific post in the Department of Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (for short BARC) was entitled to invoke
Section 13A] (A) (ii) on the Act. She also enclosed
necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was
holding a scientific post in the Department of BARC and that
she had no other suitable premises for her residence in the
local area where the suit premises was situated. It was also
claimed by the appellant that her claim was bona fide and
her joint living with her brother’s family was no longer
possible for reasons given in the applications.
The applications for eviction was resisted by the
respondent. It was alleged in the written statement that the
appellant was not the owner of the suit flat: theat there
was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between them:
that she was not holding a post of Scientific Officer in
BARC: that Flat No.1 on the ground floor was conveniently
divided into Flat Nos. 1A and 1B and the appellant was in
possession of one of the flats and that, therefore, her
claim was not bona fide.
Before the Competent Authority, the appellant, besides
examining herself, has examined the Assistant Personnel
Officer of the BARC to prove the Certificate dated 2.7.88.
She also examined the Manager of the Housing Society to
support her claim that Flat Nos. 3 and 4 were ultimately
allotted to her share under the arrangement between the
appellant and her brother. She also examined her Aunt, and
old lady of 46 years, to prove that the appellant was not
able to get on with her brother’s family consisting of her
brother. sister-in-law and two college going children and
the relationship between the appellant and her sister-in-law
was strained.
The respondent-tenant examined himself to substantiate
the allegations made in his written statement. The also
examined a Supervisor in the Local Department of the Bombay
Suburban Electric Ltd.. Santacruz, to depose that the
appellant had made an application for transfer of the
electric meter in Flat No.1A to her name. He also examined a
Ward Officer in the Chembur Ward of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation to elicit that the whole property No. 42 stands
in the name of Moti ram Udharam Jagasia. In addition to the
above, he also examined his son to speak about the details
regarding Flat No. 1A and 1B.
In the light of the pleadings. Oral and documentary
evidence, the competent Authority by an order dated 31.3.90.
held that the appellant had proved that she was the landlady
qua respondent-tenant as defined in the Act: that she was
holding a scientific post in BARC to enable her to invoke
Section 13A1 (1) (A) (ii) of the Act that the Certificate
produced by her was proved; that she had no other suitable a
accommodation and that her claim for possession was bona
fide one. On those findings, an order of eviction of the
respondent-tenant from the suit flat was passed by the
Competent Authority.
The tenant aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
a Revision to the High Court under Section 31F of the Act.
Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the
respondent-tenant that the Certificate originality enclosed
along with the application for eviction was not in order and
the competent Authority ought not to have allowed the
applicant-landlady to substitute the Certificate issued by
the Competent Authority during the pendency of the eviction
petition. This ground did not find favour with the High
Court and the High Court after a lengthy discussion on this
issue, held that the Certificate produced during the
pendency of the trial would be sufficient compliance of the
requirement under Section 13A1 of the Act. Accordingly, the
High Court rejected the first contention.
It was then contented before the High Court that the
second Certificate. Even though issued by the Competent
Authority, was issued mechanically, arbitrarily and without
application of mind and was therefore, liable to be ignored
and consequently the order of eviction passed on the basis
of the Certificate was also liable to be set aside. In other
words, the contention of the tenant before the High Court
was that though the Certificate certifies that the landlady
was holding a post of the Scientific Officer, she being a
Medical Doctor and discharging the duties of a Doctor, could
not be treated as a Scientific Officer and the Certificate
issued was, therefore, not on proper appreciation of the
term. This contention found favour with the High Court and
the High Court held that merely because the BARC had chosen
to style the applicant a "Scientific Officer", that would
not tract the jurisdiction of the Court from finding out
whether the applicant was, in fact, a Scientific Officer and
to whom the benefit of the provision was to be extended. The
High Court found that the applicant-landlady was not
entitled to the benefit of Section 13A1 of the Act despite
the issuance of the Certificate and despite the
conclusiveness of the facts stated in the Certificate. The
High Court also found that the Certificate had been issued
in colourable exercise of power and the same was tainted
with malafides and, therefore, liable to be lenored. The
High Court did not stop there and further analysed the
contents of the Certificate sentence by sentence and land
that the facts given in the Certificate were not correct and
on that ground also. The certificate deserved to be ignored
totally. Consequently, the benefit of Section 13A1 of the
Act could not be extended to the applicant.
The High Court also considered the question of bona
fide requirement and analysed the evidence, as if it was the
Competent Authority, led by the parties and came to a
conclusion that the inter se arrangement between the family
members, though accepted by the Housing Society, cannot be
accepted and relied upon. The High Court also found on re-
appreciation of facts that the applicant could continue to
occupy the portion in her possession conveniently and,
therefore, she had not been able to prove that she required
the suit premises bona fide for her occupation.
On these findings, the High Court reversing the order
of the Competent Authority, dismissed the applications for
eviction.
Mr. Harish N. Salve learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, submitted that the High Court exceeded it
revisional jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and
failed to appreciate that the appellant was posted as a
Scientific Officer as per the Presidential Order, which had
been gazetted as per the Presidential Order, which had been
gazetted and it was not for the High Court to go further and
investigate whether the appellant was holding a scientific
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
post or not. Even though the High Court found that the
Certificate was conclusive according to Section 13A1
(1)(A)(b) it went wrong in going beyond the Certificate. He
submitted that the purpose of introducing special provisions
in the Act has been successfully defeated by dragging the
proceedings for nearly a decade. According to the learned
counsel, the relationship of landlady and tenant cannot be
disputed as admittedly the tenant was paying rents to the
appellant. Even otherwise, the fact the appellant is a co-
owner she is entitled to file the application for eviction.
In the absence of other co-owners disputing her claim, it is
not open to the tenant to challenge her title. In support of
his contention that a co-owner can file a petition for
eviction the learned counsel placed reliance on two
judgments of this Court reported in Kanta Goel Vs. B.P.
Pathak & Ors. - (1977)2 SCC 814. and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder
Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. (1989) SCC 444. He also
submitted that on a plain reading of Sections 13A1 and 31F
the High Court ought not to have rejected the Certificate
and analysed the Facts and evidence as if it was sitting in
Appeal over the decision of the Competent Authority. Broadly
speaking the contents in the certificate regarding the plot
number and the name of the Society leave no doubt about the
facts given therein. In any case, the respondent-tenant is
not prejudiced by small mistakes appearing in the
certificate which have been unduly magnified by the High
Court instead of ignoring the same.
Contending contrary, Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-tenant, submitted that the High
Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the
Certificate issued by the competent Authority was without
application of mind and it was open to the High Court to go
into the correctness of the Certificate, notwithstanding
that the Certificate was conclusive in the light of Section
13A1(2) of the Act. He also submitted that certain facts
given in the Certificate regarding the ownership were also
not correct as found by the High Court and, therefore, the
High Court was justified in rejecting the Certificate.
According to Mr.Hegde, in the absence of registered
documents specifying the allotments inter se the heirs of
deceased Udharam, the claim of the appellant that she was
the owner of a specific flat cannot be accepted and,
therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the
arrangement accepted by the Housing Society cannot be
pressed into service. Learned counsel also wanted to raise
the point rejected by the High Court, namely, that the
Competent Authority ought not to have allowed the applicant
to substitute the first Certificate which was not issued by
the Competent Authority, though the second one was issued by
the Competent Authority.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We
are of the view that the High Court exceeded its revisional
jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the Competent
Authority without appreciating the limitation imposed by the
Act. The relevant portion of Section 13A1(1)(A)(ii) and 2
reads as follows:-
"13A1. Members of armed forces of
the Union, scientists or their
successor-in-interest entitled to
recover possession of premises
required for their occupation. (1)
Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Act or
any contract,--
(A) a landlord who,--
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
(i)................................
..................
(ii) holds a scientific post in the
Department of Atomic Energy of the
Central Government or in any of its
aided institution (hereinafter in
this section referred to as "a
scientist") or was such a scientist
and has retired as such (which term
shall include premature retirement)
and one year has not elapsed since
his retirement on the date of
making of the applications.
Shall be entitled to recover from
his tenant the possession of any
premises owned by him on the ground
that such premises are bona fide
required by him for occupation by
himself or by any member of his
family, by making an application
for the purpose of recovery of
possession of the premises, to the
Competent Authority; and the
Competent Authority shall make an
order of eviction on that ground
if--
(a) in the case of a landlord who
is a member of the armed forces of
the Union, he produces a
certificate signed by the
authorised officer to the effect
that,---
(1) he is a member of the armed
forces of the Union, or that he was
such a member and has retired as
such, and
(ii) he does not possess any other
premises suitable for residence in
the local area where the premises
are situated; or
(b) in the case of a landlord who
is scientist, he produces a
certificate signed by an officer of
the Department of Atomic Energy of,
or above, the rank of Deputy
Secretary to Government to the
effect that --
(i) he is presently holding a
scientific post in the Department
of Atomic Energy or in any of its
aided institution specified in the
certificate or he was holding such
post and has now retired with
effect from the date specified in
the certificate;
(ii) he does not possess any other
suitable residence (excluding any
residential accommodation provided
by Government) in the local area
where the premises are situated.
(2) Any Certificate ganted under
sub-section (1) shall be conclusive
evidence of the facts stated
there."
Section 31F reads as follows:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
"31F. Order of Competent Authority
to be non-appealable and revision
by High Court. (1) No appeal shall
the against an order for the
recover of possession of any
premises made by the Competent
Authority in accordance with the
procedure specified in Section 31F.
(2) The High Court may, at any time
sub motu or on the application of
any person aggrieved, for the
purpose of satisfying itself that
an order made in any case by the
competent Authority under Section
31E is according to law. call for
the record of that case and pass
such order in respect thereto as it
thinks fit:
Provided that, no powers of
revision at the instance of person
aggrieved shall be exercised unless
an application is presented within
ninety days of the date of the
order sough to be revised."
The extracts of relevant provisions given above are the
provisions as amended by the Bombay Rents (Amendment) Act,
1986, It is necessary in this context to bear in mind the
background which necessasitated the said amendment in the
year 1986. Section 13A1 itself was inserted into the Act by
the Maharashtra Amendment Act 52 of 1975. The said Section
when introduced initially was made applicable to members of
armed forces of Union and their widows only. Subsequently,
by Maharashtra Amendment Act 11 of 1977, Section 13A2 was
inserted. This provision extended the benefits to persons
holding scientific posts in the Department of Atomic Energy
of the Central Government or in any of its aided
institutions and their widows. However, the procedure for
applications and appeal remained the same as appealable to
the other landlords for similar relief in the year 1986, a
further amendment was brought by the Maharashtra Legislature
by combining Section 13A1 and 13A2 and substituting Section
13A2 enabling landlords to recover possession of premises
given on expiry of licence. Another significant amendment
introduced by the Amending Act 1986 related to special
provisions for recovery of possession by landlords such as
members of armed forces of the Union, scientists and their
widows on the ground that the premises are bona fide
required for occupation by them or by any member of their
family. It was considered that the normal procedure in the
main Act will take time in getting a decree through the
Court and the object of making special provisions (Sections
13A1 and 13A2) cannot be achieved. Therefore, the
legislature provided a special machinery for summary
disposal of the applications made by the landlords coming
under Section 13A1 and 13A2 for recovery of premises from
the tenants. Consequently, Part IIA was introduced in the
Act making suitable provisions for appointment of Competent
Authorities for the procedure to be followed by them for
giving finality to the order made by the Competent
Authority subject to only a revision by the High Court and
further barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
It is also necessary to extract the order of
appointment of the appellant as a Scientific Officer, which
reads as follows:-
Bombay-400039, the 5 May 1997
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
No. 5/97 BARC:- The President is pleased to appoint the
undermentioned officers of the Baba Atomic Research Centre
of this Department to the posts indicated under column 35
with effect from the dates indicated under column 5 against
each, in an officiating capacity until further orders:-
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sl.Name Permanent Offi- Now Date
No. post held ciating appointed
if any as as
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. - - - - -
2. - - - - -
3. - - - - -
4. Dr. (Kum) - Scientif- Scientif- 1.8.76
Kanta Udharam ic Officer fic (FN)
Jagasia /Engr.Gra- Officer/
de SC /Engr.
Grade SD
5. - - - - -
6. - - - - -
7. - - - - -
8. - - - - -
9. - - - - -
------------------------------------------------------------
We shall now extract the Certificate, which is relevant
for our purpose, issued by the competent Authority, from the
Department of Atomic Energy which reads as follows:-
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,
Bombay 400 039
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
No. 25/42/88/R July 22, 1988
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is certify that :
(1) Dr. (Kum.) Kanta U.Jagasia, Scientific Officer,
Grade SE, Medical Division is presently holding a Scientific
Post" In the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-125-4700-150-5000 in
the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Department of Atomic
Energy, Government of India.
(11) As per records, Dr. (Kum.) K.U. Jagasia, who is an
owner of accommodation at 42, Sindhi Society, Chembur,
Bombay 400 071 does not possess any other residence in
Bombay in her name.
This certificate is issued to Dr. (kum.) Jagasia at her
request for intiating the eviction proceedings against her
tenants and to get possession of her accommodation referred
to in item (ii) above, keeping in view the provision
contained in Section 132A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as amended from time
to time.
Sd/-
(R. Narayanaswamy)
Deputy Secretary/Staff Relations Officer.
with his background let us proceed further.
A look at Section 31F will show that the legislature
deviating from the normal procedure otherwise provided in
the Act by enabling the aggrieved parties to approach the
Appellate Court has provided a limited jurisdiction to the
High Court against the order of the Competent Authority,
Under this provision, the High Court is not expected to go
into the matter as an Appellate Authority reappreciating the
evidence, as has been done by the High Court in the present
case. With respect, we may say that the High Court has
considered the issue as if it was deciding the original
suit. The legislature has expressly provided that any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Certificate granted under Sub-Section (1) of Section 13A1
shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein
(Vide Sub-Section 2 extracted above). Nevertheless, the High
Court went beyond the Certificate and substituted its own
reasoning for not accepting the Certificate. First of all,
the Presidential Order appointed the appellant (supra) as a
Scientific Officer as notified in the Gazette was brought to
the notice of the High Court and in spite of that the High
Court found as follows:-
"It is no doubt true that Section
13A1(2) does make the facts stated
in the Certificate conclusive
evidence of the facts stated
therein. However, when it is show
that the applicant, by virtue of
the duties that she is performing
in the BARC, cannot be included in
the category of a Scientific
Officer, it would be always open to
a court to consider whether the
applicant an officer to whom the
legislature intended to confer the
said benefit. Merely because of the
BARC, who are the employees of the
applicant, have chosen to style the
applicant a Scientific Officer
would not detract from the power or
the jurisdiction of the Court from
finding out whether the applicant
is infact a Scientific Officer to
whom the benefit of the said
provision is to be extended. To
cite an extreme example, to
illustrate my point of view, in
case BARC issue a certificate in
favour of a Peon employed in its
Office that he is a Scientific
Officer would it on account of the
conclusiveness which is given to it
by sub-sec.2, come in the way of
the Court to hold that he is not a
Scientific Officer. In my view,
that cannot be the construction
that can legitimately be given to
the said provision. This would be
so even if as has been pointed out
by Shri Abhyankar that the
appointment of the applicant, as is
seen from the aforesaid Gazette, is
made by the President of India."
We are unable either to appreciate the example given by
the High Court or to accept the conclusion reached by the
High Court, Likewise, the High Court found fault with the
certificate in stating that the appellant was "an owner of
accommodation at 42 Sindhi Society, Chembur Road Bombay-
400071.", without appreciating that Flat No.3, which is the
suit premises, is within this plot No.42 and the parties
were not in doubt about the premises or about the Society
whose name is given in the Certificate. The High Court was
not justified in finding fault with the Certificate by
pointing out minor mistakes viz. in not giving the full
details. The High Court was also not right in finding that
the Certificate was not acceptable for the additional reason
that it was issued under colourable exercise of power and
with a malafide intention. we do not find that any such case
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
was put forward or made out before the competent Authority.
We have already noticed the special provisions made in
the Act under Section 13A1 as well as under part 11A of the
Act and the reason for introducing the said provisions. In
one sense the question regarding the conclusive nature of
contents contained in the Certificate issued as required
under Section 13A1 is no longer res integra. This Court in
Shivram Anand Shiroor Vs. Mrs. Radhbai Shantram Kowshik &
Anr. - (1984) 1 SCC 588 had occasion to consider the scope
of Section 13A1 as introduced in the year 1975 before the
same was amended in 1977 and 1986. However, as regards the
conclusiveness of the Certificate there is no change in the
Section. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for a Bench of three
Judges, while repelling a contention that the Bombay Rent
Act is a welfare legislation designed among other matters,
to protect tenants from harassment and unreasonable eviction
by landlords and it should therefore, be interpreted in a
broad and liberal spirit so as to further and not to
constrain the object of the Act, observed as follows:-
"Notwithstanding the expressed
legislative bias in favour of the
tenant, the Legislature itself made
a serious departure from the
general rule so as to lean in
favour of landlords who are or were
members of the armed services, and
who because of the exigencies of
their service were not able to
occupy their own premises during
the course of their service.
Section 13-A1 was enacted, relaxing
the rigour of Section 13 in favour
of a landlord who is or was a
member of the armed forces. It is
now provided that if he produces a
certificate in the manner
prescribed it shall be taken as
established, without further proof
that he is presently a member of
the armed forces of the union or
that he was such member and is now
a retired ex-serviceman and that he
does not possess any other suitable
residence in the local area where
he or any member of his family can
reside. All that he has to further
prove is that he bona fide requires
the premises for occupation by
himself or any member of his
family. The certificate is
conclusive proof that he does not
possess any suitable residence in
the local area, but not that he
bona fide requires the same for
occupation by himself or any member
of his family. There may be cases
where he does not possess any other
suitable residence in the local
area and yet he does not bona fide
require the premises for occupation
by himself or any member of his
family, being comfortably settled
elsewhere with no need or pressure
to move. But as soon as he
establishes that he bona fide
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
required the premises for
occupation for his family, he is
entitled to recover possession and
does not have to further prove that
greater hardship would be caused to
him than to the tenant if a decree
for possession is not granted. It
is of course, implicit that the
person producing the certificate is
the landlord. It is further
implicit that the person mentioned
in the certificate presently or
previously a member of the armed
forces was at a simultaneous point
of time both landlord and member of
the armed forces."
The Bench has noticed an earlier decision on this
provision, namely, Winifred Ross Vs. Ivy Fonseca (1984) 1
SCC 288.
In above observations on the conclusive nature of the
Certificate supports the view taken by us in this case.
Further, it must be remembered that when the three-Judge
Bench considered the case, Part IIA was not introduced and,
therefore, against the order of the Rent Controller an
appeal was provided and further revision under Article 227
of the Constitution of India was available to the aggrieved
parties. Now, by introduction of Part IIA the order of the
competent Authority was to be final subject to revision by
the High Court under Section 31F. This should have been
borne in mind by the High Court while dealing with the
matter in hand, which the High Court failed to do.
The High Court also was not justified in interfering
with the considered finding of the Competent Authority
regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlady on the
basis of evidence given by her Aunt. The High Court,
forgetting that it had a limited revisional jurisdiction.
analysed the evidence and substituted its findings in place
of the findings of the Competent Authority. On a perusal of
the evidence, we find that the findings arrived at by the
Competent Authority on the basis of oral evidence cannot be
said to be perverse or even unreasonable requiring the High
Court to reverse the same. It is well settled that though
another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence,
the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of
the lower courts on that ground. We do not think it is
necessary to reiterate that a co-owners’ can maintain not
seriously disputed before us. We find that question does not
strictly arise for consideration on the facts of this case
as the legal heirs had settled among themselves regarding
allotment of distinct and different shares to each one of
them, which was accepted by the Housing Society. We have
also seen that the tenant was paying rents to the appellant.
The Competent Authority on this aspect has observed as
follows:-
"Apart from the above evidence, the
applicant’s evidence show that
after 31.1.1988 the opponent’s son
Chetan used to pay rent by cheque
on behalf of his father drawn in
favour of the applicant. The
applicant has issued rent receipts
to him and she has produced the
counterfoils of rent receipts from
February 1988 onwards (Ex.A3). The
reverse of the counterfoils bear
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
the signature of the opponent’s son
Chetan. The opponent has produced
the rent receipts (Ex. R-1). This
Evidence establishes the fact that
the appointment has become the
contractual tenant of the applicant
after 31.1.1988."
Though the matter of hardship is not quite relevant
when the application for eviction is under Section 13A1. The
Competent Authority has also considered that aspect and
found as follows:-
"Coming to the third contention of
Mr. Murthy regarding hardship, the
question of hardship is irrelevant
for the purpose of sec. 13A1 of the
Rent Act. Apart from this, the
evidence on record reveals that the
opponent has other accommodation at
his disposal. The opponent’s son
Dinesh has constructed a bungalow
in Mysore Colony at Chembur,
Bombay. The opponent is also
presumed to be residing with his
son Subanna in the premises of
Maharashtra Housing Board, Kurla,
to avail himself of medical
facilities available to him by
virtue of his son Subanna being in
employment of B.A.R.C. The third
contention raised by Mr. Murthy,
therefore, is not valid."
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High
Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the
Competent Authority and allowing the revision.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, the
order of the High Court is set aside and that of the
competent Authority is restored. There will be no order as
to costs.