Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Kaithal Provision Store vs Sanjay Bansal on 26 July, 2018
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Indu Malhotra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7250 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14031 OF 2018)
M/S KAITHAL PROVISION STORE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SANJAY BANSAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the parties.
Leave granted.
In the present case, the landlords went to the learned 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 the findings stating that there were, in fact, no arrears, which finding was not disturbed by the High Court in revision, and therefore became final.
So far as bona fide requirement was concerned, two things impressed the Appellate Court, namely, that in one of the shops owned by the landlord, the tenant was evicted on the ground of bona fide requirement of a business being started, but no business was started even after a period of two years thereafter. Even otherwise, it was held that in the factual circumstance of this Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R case, the landlords advisedly did not go into the witness box NATARAJAN Date: 2018.07.28 12:26:35 IST Reason: because they suppressed the fact that 50% of SCO Nos. 74-75 was purchased during the pendency of the petition. 2 The High Court in the 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 is well settled that the landlord is 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. See - for the revisional jurisdiction of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which is the Act applicable in the present case - Ajit Singh and Another vs. Jit Ram and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 699 (para 25).
Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and reinstate that of the first Appellate Court.
.......................... J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) ..........................
(INDU MALHOTRA) New Delhi;
July 26, 2018.
3
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14031/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-04-2018 in CR No. 8055/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) M/S KAITHAL PROVISION STORE Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY BANSAL & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. ) Date : 26-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. B.B. Prasoon, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jeetender Gupta, AOR Ms. Sonam Priya, Adv.
Mr. Shobhit Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(R. NATARAJAN) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)