Supreme Court of India
K.Urmila & Ors vs Ram Kumar Verma on 17 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1188, 1998 (3) SCC 57, 1998 AIR SCW 1415, 1998 AIR SCW 1009, 1998 (2) ALL CJ 897, 1998 (1) SCALE 657, 1998 (3) ADSC 123, 1998 (3) SCC 67, (1998) 3 PUN LR 715, (1998) 1 KER LT 54, (1998) 1 SCR 899 (SC), 1998 ALL CJ 2 897, (1998) 2 MAD LJ 121.1, (1998) 2 MAD LJ 121.2, 1998 ADSC 3 123, 1998 (1) BLJR 569, 1999 (1) SRJ 425, 1998 (120) PUN LR 715, 1998 SCFBRC 58, 1998 (2) ADSC 260, 1998 BOMRC 182, 1998 (2) ANDHLT 31, 1998 (1) SCALE 635, 1998 ( ) HRR 162, (1998) ILR (KANT) 1869, (1998) 1 RENCR 263, (1998) 1 CURCC 133, (1998) 1 SCALE 635, (1998) 1 SCALE 657, (1998) 2 LANDLR 85, (1998) 1 RENCJ 239, (1998) 1 RENTLR 136, (1998) 3 SCJ 447, (1998) 2 SUPREME 22, (1998) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 651, (1998) 1 MAD LW 693, (1998) 2 SERVLR 247, (1998) 2 SUPREME 71, (1998) 1 RECCIVR 684, (1998) 1 ACC 321, (1998) 1 CTC 394 (MAD), (1998) 3 BOM CR 625
Author: M. Jagannadha Rao
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao
PETITIONER: K.URMILA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM KUMAR VERMA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/02/1998 BENCH: S. SAGHIR A HMAD, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Saghir Ahmad Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Jagannadha Rao Ms. Usha Reddy, Adv. for the appellants. Chaitanya Sidharth and R.C.Verma, Advs. for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 56 of 1994 dated 6.3.1997. By that judgment, the learned Single Judge reversed the concurrent findings of the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction petition in favour of the respondent-landlord.
The eviction application was filed by the respondent against appellants in the year 1985 on three grounds namely wilful default, bonafide requirement for self-occupation and sub-letting. The learned Rent Controller by his judgment dated 31.7.1988 dismissed the eviction application.
On appeal by the landlord the appeliate authority again framed three points for consideration namely with regard to wilful default, bonafide requirement and sub-letting and came to the conclusion that none of the grounds was proved. In the result, the appeal of the landlord was dismissed on 20.9.1993.
The landlord then filed revision in the High Court. It was merely observed by the High Court as follows:
"Having gone through the orders of the courts below, I feel that the courts that the petitioner has not made out his bonafide requirement and that his bonafide requirement is arbitrary. There is evidence to show that the landlord requires the premises in question for starting his business. Hence both the orders under revision deserve to be set aside. Accordingly they are set aside."
Having held so, the learned Judge granted two years time i.e. upto 6.3.1989 for vacation.
In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the tenant that the High Court has not considered and discussed the relevant evidence on the basis of which the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had held that the landlord had not established his bonafide requirement. On the other hand, it is contended for the respondent- landlord that this case is not a fit one for interference by this Court.
We are of the view that the High Court while reversing the concurrent findings of the appellate authority and the Rent Controller ought to have considered and discussed the evidence on which the said authorities had held against the landlord. It was not sufficient for the High Court merely to sate that there was evidence to show that the bonafides of the landlord was proved. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the same to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law as early as possible. Appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the High Court accordingly.