D. Radhakrishnan & Anr. Vs. M. Loorduswamy & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5847-5849 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4581-4583 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4581-4583 of 1999)
Petitioner: D. Radhakrishnan & Anr.
Respondent: M. Loorduswamy & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5847-5849 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4581-4583 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4581-4583 of 1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 10, 2000
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Sections 25, 14(1)(b) – Revision – Eviction on bona fide require-ment for demolition and reconstruction – Concurrent findings by courts below – High Court interfering – Nature of powers under this provision. Held that it was not open to High Court to reap-preciate the evidence. Orders set aside.
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Sections 25, 14(1)(b) – Revision – Eviction on bona fide require-ment for demolition and reconstruction – Concurrent findings by courts below – High Court interfering – Nature of powers under this provision. Held that it was not open to High Court to reap-preciate the evidence. Orders set aside.
Held:
The power of revision of the High Court, under Section 25, cannot be held to be similar to the power of civil court under Section 115 C.P.C., but at the same time, the same cannot be held to be conferring appellate power on the High Court. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concur-rent findings, arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority, with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord requiring demolition and reconstruction. While exercis-ing revisional jursidiction, to find out illegality with the findings or illegality of any procedure, it was not open to reappreciate the evidence, in the light of the object of the Act. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (JT 1996 (9) SC 408)
(Para 5)
(Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a landlord’s appeal against the revisional order of the High Court of Madras, setting aside the order of eviction of tenants, on an application being filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). On the basis of the materials produced in course of the proceedings, the Rent Controller came to the con-clusion that the need of the landlord for the purpose of demoli-tion and reconstruction is bona fide and accordingly, the order was passed for eviction. The tenants carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller on reappreciation of the evidence adduced in the case.
3. The tenants then carried the matter to the High Court in revision, invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec-tion 25 of the Act. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the two forums below on the question of bona fide need of the land-lord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject matter of appeal in this Court.
4. Mr. Sampath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, under Section 25, of the Act, by examining the object of the Act and interfering with the findings arrived at by the two forums and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the forums below and the jurisdiction of the High Court being to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the decisions taken by the forums below, the same cannot be found fault with.
5. The requirement of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction has been considered and dealt with elaborately by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (JT 1996 (9) SC 408 = (1996) 6 SCC 475). The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, could have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. Though the power of revision of the High Court under Section 25 cannot be held to be similar to the power of civil court under Section 115 C.P.C., but at the same time, the same cannot be held to be conferring ap-pellate power on the High Court. The High Court is only re-quired to examine and satisfy, whether the procedure followed by the forum below is regular or not and whether there has been any illegality or impropriety of the decisions arrived at.
6. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concur-rent findings arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord, requiring demolition and reconstruction. While exer-cising revisional jursidiction, to find out illegality with the findings or illegality of any procedure, it was not open to reappreciate the evidence, in the light of the object of the Act. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and affirm the decision of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority. Respondent no. 1 is granted six months’ time to deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord subject to the usual undertaking being filed in this Court within four weeks from today. The appeals stand dis-posed of accordingly.
7. It is stated by Mr. Sampath that one of the tenants has alrea-dy vacated and the other one has left the premises.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a landlord’s appeal against the revisional order of the High Court of Madras, setting aside the order of eviction of tenants, on an application being filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). On the basis of the materials produced in course of the proceedings, the Rent Controller came to the con-clusion that the need of the landlord for the purpose of demoli-tion and reconstruction is bona fide and accordingly, the order was passed for eviction. The tenants carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller on reappreciation of the evidence adduced in the case.
3. The tenants then carried the matter to the High Court in revision, invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec-tion 25 of the Act. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the two forums below on the question of bona fide need of the land-lord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject matter of appeal in this Court.
4. Mr. Sampath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, under Section 25, of the Act, by examining the object of the Act and interfering with the findings arrived at by the two forums and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the forums below and the jurisdiction of the High Court being to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the decisions taken by the forums below, the same cannot be found fault with.
5. The requirement of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction has been considered and dealt with elaborately by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (JT 1996 (9) SC 408 = (1996) 6 SCC 475). The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, could have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. Though the power of revision of the High Court under Section 25 cannot be held to be similar to the power of civil court under Section 115 C.P.C., but at the same time, the same cannot be held to be conferring ap-pellate power on the High Court. The High Court is only re-quired to examine and satisfy, whether the procedure followed by the forum below is regular or not and whether there has been any illegality or impropriety of the decisions arrived at.
6. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concur-rent findings arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord, requiring demolition and reconstruction. While exer-cising revisional jursidiction, to find out illegality with the findings or illegality of any procedure, it was not open to reappreciate the evidence, in the light of the object of the Act. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and affirm the decision of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate authority. Respondent no. 1 is granted six months’ time to deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord subject to the usual undertaking being filed in this Court within four weeks from today. The appeals stand dis-posed of accordingly.
7. It is stated by Mr. Sampath that one of the tenants has alrea-dy vacated and the other one has left the premises.
