Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7457 of 2001
PETITIONER:
N. PRABHAKAR RAO
RESPONDENT:
J .R. RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESHJI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/11/2001
BENCH:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(4) SCR 654
The following Order of the Court was delivered . Leave is granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 5093 of 1996 dated September 5, 2000,
allowing the revision filed by the respondent-landlord and setting aside
the order of the appellate authority in R.A. No. 97 of 1991 dated July 12,
1996 confirming the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secundrabad in
R.C. No. 355 of 1980 dated December 31, 1990.
The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord of the
building bearing Municipal Assessment No. 7-3-181 to 183 and 209 situated
at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad (for short, ’the building’)- The appellant
obtained the building which comprises of both residential as well as non-
residential portions, from the respondent on the monthly rent of Rs. 160
under the agree-ment of tenancy dated February 5,1974. The respondent filed
eviction petition R.C. No. 355 of 1980 praying for eviction of the
appellant from the building on as many as three grounds; the only ground
with which we are concerned here is bona fide requirement of the respondent
under Section 10(3)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 1960 (for short, ’the Act’). The appellant contested the
petition denying that the need of the respondent was bona fide. The learned
Rent Controller, on considering the evidence placed before him, came to the
conclusion that the requirements of the said provision were not satisfied
and dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal the learned Chief Judge,
City Small Causes Court - Appellate Authority under the Act - on scrutiny
of the evidence including the additional evidence, allowed to be adduced by
the parties, dismissed the appeal - R.A. No. 97 of 1991 - on July 12, 1996.
The respondent carried the matter in revision before the High Court in
C.R.P. No. 5093 of 1996 which was allowed by the im-pugned order. That is
how this appeal came to be filed.
Mr. P. Narasimha, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that both
with regard to residential portion as well as non-residential portion of
the building, the trial court recorded specific finding that the alleged
need of the respondent was not bona fide, which was upheld by the appellate
authority; the High Court without examining the correctness of those
findings of fact, re-corded its own finding upholding the claim of the
respondent.
Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has
endeavoured to sustain the order of the High Court on the ground that by a
reasoned order the High Court came to the conclusion that the need of the
respondent was bona fide and ordered eviction and therefore the findings of
the appellate authority as well as the trial court will be deemed to have
been dealt with and set aside.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
We have perused the order of the High Court under challenge as well as the
order of the appellate authority and the trial court. We find considerable
force in the contention of Mr. Narasimha. Having regard to the revisional
powers of the High Court under Section 22 of the Act unless in the opinion
of the High Court, for reasons to be recorded, the order assailed before it
suffers from an illegality, irregularity or impropriety, the same cannot be
interfered with, more so when it is based on concurrent findings of fact.
In the instant case, the High Court did not indicate any reasons for not
sustaining the order of the appellate authority. We are, therefore, unable
to uphold the impugned order of the High Court. Inasmuch as we are of the
view that remanding the case to the High Court for fresh disposal, in
accordance with law, will meet the ends of justice, we refrain from making
any observation on the merits of the case. We set aside the impugned order
of the High Court and restore C.R.P. No. 5093 of 1996 to the file of the
High Court for deciding the same in accordance with law untrammelled by any
observation made in this order.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. We make no order as to costs of this
appeal.