Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 8439 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Harvinder Kaur Sabharwal
RESPONDENT:
Navneet Kaur
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2008
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ) NO.8439 OF 2007
1. The petitioner in this special leave petition is a tenant in respect of
Booth No.22, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh in the State of Punjab (in short ’the
demised premises) who has been sought to be evicted by the respondent on
the ground that she required the demised premises for her personal use and
for opening a retail-cum-wholesale shop of garments in the demised
premises which was a non-residential building. The Rent Controller
dismissed the application of the landlady/respondent. Feeling aggrieved, an
appeal was carried before the appellate authority which had reversed the
finding on the question of bona fide requirement and
directed eviction of the petitioner. Against the order of eviction passed by the
appellate authority reversing the order of rejection passed by the Rent
Controller, the petitioner approached the High Court for setting aside the order
of the appellate authority. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected
the application filed by the tenant/petitioner against which this special leave
petition has been filed which was heard on notice in presence of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. Mr.P.K.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
tenant/petitioner sought to argue that in order to come to a conclusion on the
question of bona fide requirement of the landlady/ respondent, the High Court
as well as the appellate authority had failed to consider the material provisions
of the Act as well as the material evidence on record for which the decree
could be passed in favour of the landlady. For this purpose, we have
examined the finding of the appellate
authority as well as of the High Court and we find that the High Court as well
as the appellate authority on consideration of the material evidence, oral and
documentary, came to a conclusion of fact that the landlady/respondent was
entitled to an order of eviction. Mr. Ghosh, however, could not satisfy us by
showing that the findings on the question of bona fide requirement of the
landlady/respondent was either perverse or arbitrary or they had failed to
consider the provisions of the Act for grant of an order of eviction. That being
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the position and in view of the fact that this special leave petition is concluded
by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the appellate authority as well
as by the High Court on the question of bona fide requirement, we have no
other alternative but to dismiss the special leave petition. Accordingly, this
special leave petition is rejected.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant time to the
petitioner to vacate the premises in question by 31st of March, 2009, subject to
filing a usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from this date.