Supreme Court Restores Eviction Order, Reaffirms Limits of High Court Revisional Powers in Rent Disputes
The Supreme Court of India set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority against a tenant under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the decision in Madan Mohan through Legal Representatives versus Thakar Dass through Legal Representatives.
The dispute originated when landlady Kamla Devi filed an eviction petition against the respondent tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement for herself and her son, Madan Mohan. During the proceedings, both original parties passed away, and their legal representatives continued the litigation. Both the Rent Controller at Nabha and the Appellate Authority at Patiala found the landlord requirement genuine and decreed the eviction. However, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings in a revision petition, holding that the landlady had suppressed the availability of a third vacant shop.
Reversing the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the concept of bona fide requirement must be judged by objective standards of felt need rather than mere desire or pretext. The top court observed that even if a third shop was used for storing waste material as recorded by lower forums, it did not negate the genuine need of the landlord to occupy the demised shop for business.
The apex court reiterated settled law regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It affirmed that High Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless those findings suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to deliver peaceful possession of the shop within two months.