SC sets aside HC ruling in eviction case

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 14

The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment in an eviction case after holding that the Punjab and Haryana High Court merely cited the mantra that the landlord was the best person to decide about his need.

The assertion by the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra came on a civil appeal filed against Sanjay Bansal and another respondent by Chandigarh-based M/s Kaithal Provision Store through senior advocate Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.

The Bench asserted that the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, acted as a second court of first appeal, re-appraised the facts, and without adverting to the grounds mentioned by the lower appellate court merely cited the mantra that it was well settled that the landlord was the best person to decide about his need. “This court has repeatedly held that in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, unless a finding is perverse, there can be no interference in revision,” the Bench added.

The Bench was told that the landlords in the present case went to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, with a case of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement, both of which were found in their favour.

The appellate court, which is the final court of fact, reversed both findings stating that there were, in fact, no arrears. The finding was not disturbed by the High Court in revision and, as such, became final.

So far as bona fide requirement was concerned, two things impressed the appellate court. Firstly, the tenant in one of the shops owned by the landlord was evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of starting a business. However, it was not started even after two years. Even otherwise, it was held that, in the factual circumstances of the case, the landlords advisedly did not go into the witness box because they suppressed the fact that 50 per cent of the SCO was purchased during the pendency of the petition. “Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and reinstate that of the first appellate court,” the Bench concluded.

In the plea, senior advocate Parsoon had earlier contended that the petitioner was constrained to file the special leave petition against the impugned judgment and final order dated April 6 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a civil revision filed by the respondent. The High Court accepted the petition and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, while directing the petitioner to be evicted from the premises.