Supreme Court of India
Rai Chand Jain vs Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla on 15 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 744, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 91, 1991 (1) SCC 422, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 744, 1991 HRR 1, (1990) 4 JT 638 (SC), 1990 (4) JT 638, (1991) 1 RENCJ 5, (1991) 1 RENCR 128, (1991) 1 RENTLR 76, (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 229
Author: B.C. Ray
Bench: B.C. Ray, R.M. Sahai
PETITIONER:
RAI CHAND JAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MISS CHANDRA KANTA KHOSLA
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, B.C. (J)
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 744 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 91
1991 SCC (1) 422 JT 1990 (4) 638
1990 SCALE (2)1131
ACT:
East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949--Sections
11 and 15--High Court--Interference with findings of
fact--Whether permissible.
HEADNOTE:
Respondent, land-lady leased out the demised premises to
the appellant on the basis of a rent note dated 19.5.1978
wherein it was stipulated that the demised premises were to
be used for residential purpose and that the tenant-appel-
lant shall not sublet the premises or any part thereof. The
respondent filed an application for eviction of the appel-
lant-tenant on the ground that the tenant had not paid the
rent; that he has changed the user of the premises by set-
ting up a printing press`Navneet Prakashan' there and fur-
ther that she required the premises for her bona fide use.
The appellant controverted the allegations. The trial court
allowed the application holding that the demised premises
were used for the purpose other than that for which it was
let out and the premises were let out to the appellant and
not to 'Navneet Prakashan'. However, on the question of
land-lady's requirement for bona fide use, the trial court
held against her.
On appeal by the tenant-appellant, the Appellate Author-
ity reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that
the premises were let out for running printing press and
thus there was no change of user. Against the judgment of
the appellate authority, the respondentlandlady filed a
revision in the High Court. The High Court reversed the
order passed by the appellate authority. It held that the
demised premises was let out to the appellant and not to the
Navneet Prakashan and the purpose of tenancy is to use the
demised premises as residence and since the appellant has
used the premises for a purpose other than that for which it
was let out to him, he was liable to be evicted. It further
held that the respondent required the premises for bona fide
use. Hence this appeal by the tenant.
Before this Court it is inter alia contended that the
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not competent
to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the
Appellate Authority even if the findings are
92
erroneous nor It can substitute its views for the view
expressed by the appellate authority even if two views are
possible unless the findings are perverse.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: The High Court in exercising its power under
Section 15(5) Is within its Jurisdiction to reverse the
findings of fact when the same were Improper and also ille-
gal. [100B]
The tenant in the instant case, took the lease in his
own name and the rent not was signed by him. It is also
evident that he is the sole proprietory of M/s. Navneet
Prakashan. In these circumstances it cannot but be held that
the lease of the demised premises was given to the tenant
appellant for his residence. [101D-E]
Faqir Chand v. R.R. Bhanot, [1973] 3 SCR ,154; Shalimar
Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., [1988] 1 SCR
1023; Duli Chand (dead) by L. rs. v. Jagmender Dass, [1990]
1 SCC 169; Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, AIR 1986 (Pb. and
Haryana) 119; Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors., [1988] 3
SCC 131; Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt, Surjit Kaur, [1987] 3 SCR
552; M/s. New Garage Ltd. v. Khushwant Singh and Anr., [
1951] PLR 136; Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and Ors., [1986]
SCC (Suppl.) 281; Ved Parkash v. Darshan Lal Jain, [1986] 2
SCR 90, referred to.
JUDGMENT: