Dharamwati and Others Vs. Bhagvat Prasad
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6089 of 1999
Petitioner: Dharamwati and Others
Respondent: Bhagvat Prasad
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6089 of 1999
Judges: U.C. BANERJEE & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 04, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Interference under – Eviction suit on grounds of bona fide need – Concurrent findings by courts below – No case made out. Held that power is to be exercised in case of manifest injustice. No such compelling grounds made out. Hence, no inter-ference.
(Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. M/s. Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohammad Ibrahim Naina (1985 (1) SCC 251)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The tenant is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court directing eviction. The High Court granted time till 31st March, 1999 and an undertaking to that effect however, was filed. After filing the undertaking however the appellant herein moved this Court by the grant of Special Leave.
2. The suit was instituted for bonafide need and all the three courts have come to a concurrent finding that the landlord’s, need is genuine and bonafide. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while dealing with the Writ Petition has been pleased to observe that the writ court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in rent control matters is super-visory in nature and the court is not expected to embark upon re-appraisal of evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the findings of appellate authority.The learned Single Judge however recorded in file that the question of interference in the matter would not arise and as such dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. During the course of hearing, reliance was placed on the deci-sion of this Court in the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohammad Ibrahim Naina (1985 (1) SCC 251) wherein this Court in paragraph 6 observed as below :
“6. It cannot be overlooked that three courts have held concur-rently in this case that the respondent has proved that he re-quires the suit premises bona fide for his personal need. Such concurrence, undoubtedly has relevance on the question whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to review a particular decision. That jurisdic-tion has to be exercised sparingly. But that cannot possibly mean that injustice must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case. The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more courts or Tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellant. But once that burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of this Court to remedy the injustice.”
4. This Court in the judgment noted above categorically recorded that, jurisdiction under Article 136 has to be exercised spar-ingly and only in case of manifest injustice, we do not however, find any such compelling reasons to interfere with the findings neither the appellant has been able to bring home such an injus-tice in the contextual facts.
5. As such this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. The tenant is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court directing eviction. The High Court granted time till 31st March, 1999 and an undertaking to that effect however, was filed. After filing the undertaking however the appellant herein moved this Court by the grant of Special Leave.
2. The suit was instituted for bonafide need and all the three courts have come to a concurrent finding that the landlord’s, need is genuine and bonafide. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while dealing with the Writ Petition has been pleased to observe that the writ court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in rent control matters is super-visory in nature and the court is not expected to embark upon re-appraisal of evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the findings of appellate authority.The learned Single Judge however recorded in file that the question of interference in the matter would not arise and as such dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. During the course of hearing, reliance was placed on the deci-sion of this Court in the case of M/s. Variety Emporium v. R.M. Mohammad Ibrahim Naina (1985 (1) SCC 251) wherein this Court in paragraph 6 observed as below :
“6. It cannot be overlooked that three courts have held concur-rently in this case that the respondent has proved that he re-quires the suit premises bona fide for his personal need. Such concurrence, undoubtedly has relevance on the question whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to review a particular decision. That jurisdic-tion has to be exercised sparingly. But that cannot possibly mean that injustice must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case. The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more courts or Tribunals is manifestly unjust lies on the appellant. But once that burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of this Court to remedy the injustice.”
4. This Court in the judgment noted above categorically recorded that, jurisdiction under Article 136 has to be exercised spar-ingly and only in case of manifest injustice, we do not however, find any such compelling reasons to interfere with the findings neither the appellant has been able to bring home such an injus-tice in the contextual facts.
5. As such this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
