Pushpa Devi & Anr. Vs. Binod Kumar Gupta & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2001
Petitioner: Pushpa Devi & Anr.
Respondent: Binod Kumar Gupta & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 795 of 2001
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 20, 2001
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982
Sections 11(1)(c) and 14 – Tenancy – Eviction of tenant on bonafide requirements of the landlord – Trial court decreeing the suit and ordering eviction of tenant – On revision preferred by tenant, High Court remanding the case to trial court for deter-mining whether the subject matter of lease was a vacant land or building – Court also permitting the parties to adduce further evidence. Held, remand uncalled for. When both parties were prepared to argue on material available, court should not have remanded the matter affording the parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence. Matter sent back to High Court for deciding the revision in accordance with law.
Held:
When both the parties were prepared to argue the matter on the material available and have the issues raised before the High Court decided thereon, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter affording the parties an opportunity of adducing further evidence which none of them was seeking. (Para 4)
Inasmuch as we find the order of remand uncalled for, the im-pugned order of the High Court is set aside. The High Court has not recorded any finding of its own on any of the points at issue arising for decision in the case. We deem it proper to send the matter back to the High Court for deciding the revision in accor-dance with law. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellants filed a suit for ejectment of the respondents on a ground allegedly available under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evic-tion) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter ‘the Act’, for short). According to the averments made in the plaint filed by the appellants, it was a part of the building which was held on tenancy by the respondents. According to the respondents, the subject matter of tenancy was not a building as defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act but a piece of land whereon the respondents had raised a structure and using the same as a shop. Inasmuch as ejectment of the tenant-respondents was sought for on the ground of reasonable and in good faith requirement by land-lord, the suit was tried by special procedure prescribed by section 14 of the Act. The trial court found the appellants-owner of the suit premises held by the respondents on tenancy and the respondents liable to be evicted under section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
2. The tenant-respondents preferred a revision under sub-section 8 of section 14 of the Act. The High Court formed an opinion that the bone of contention between the parties, i.e., whether the subject matter of lease was a vacant land or a building, was not satisfactorily disposed of by the trial court and, therefore, the finding arrived at ‘could not be said to be conclusive’. The High Court deemed it proper, in the interest of justice, to remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh and in accordance with law. The High Court also allowed the parties a liberty of adducing further evidence. Feeling aggrieved by the order of remand, the landlords have filed this appeal by special leave.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no prayer for remand made, nor any leave of adducing additional evidence sought for, by any of the parties and, there-fore, there was no justification for the High Court to have set aside the order of the trial court allowing liberty to the par-ties for adducing further evidence and thereafter, deciding the matter afresh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court should have decided the revision on the material available before it, and in the exercise of limited jurisdiction of revision, the High Court would not have found any reason to upset and reverse the findings of fact ar-rived at by the trial court while disposing of the suit before it in accordance with the practice and procedure of a court of small causes.
4. We find merit in the submission that the remand was unwarrant-ed. When both the parties were prepared to argue the matter on the material available and have the issues raised before the High Court decided thereon, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter affording the parties an opportunity of adducing further evidence which none of them was seeking.
5. Inasmuch as we find the order of remand uncalled for, the im-pugned order of the High Court is set aside. The High Court has not recorded any finding of its own on any of the points at issue arising for decision in the case. We deem it proper to send the matter back to the High Court for deciding the revision in accor-dance with law.
6. The impugned order dated 20th December, 1999 is set aside. The revision shall stand restored on the file of the
High Court. The High Court shall, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing, decide the revision in accordance with law on the mate-rial available before it.
7. In view of the time that has already been lost, the High Court would do well to take up the revision for expeditious hearing and decision.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
1. The appellants filed a suit for ejectment of the respondents on a ground allegedly available under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Evic-tion) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter ‘the Act’, for short). According to the averments made in the plaint filed by the appellants, it was a part of the building which was held on tenancy by the respondents. According to the respondents, the subject matter of tenancy was not a building as defined in clause (b) of section 2 of the Act but a piece of land whereon the respondents had raised a structure and using the same as a shop. Inasmuch as ejectment of the tenant-respondents was sought for on the ground of reasonable and in good faith requirement by land-lord, the suit was tried by special procedure prescribed by section 14 of the Act. The trial court found the appellants-owner of the suit premises held by the respondents on tenancy and the respondents liable to be evicted under section 11(1)(c) of the Act.
2. The tenant-respondents preferred a revision under sub-section 8 of section 14 of the Act. The High Court formed an opinion that the bone of contention between the parties, i.e., whether the subject matter of lease was a vacant land or a building, was not satisfactorily disposed of by the trial court and, therefore, the finding arrived at ‘could not be said to be conclusive’. The High Court deemed it proper, in the interest of justice, to remand the case to the trial court for decision afresh and in accordance with law. The High Court also allowed the parties a liberty of adducing further evidence. Feeling aggrieved by the order of remand, the landlords have filed this appeal by special leave.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no prayer for remand made, nor any leave of adducing additional evidence sought for, by any of the parties and, there-fore, there was no justification for the High Court to have set aside the order of the trial court allowing liberty to the par-ties for adducing further evidence and thereafter, deciding the matter afresh. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court should have decided the revision on the material available before it, and in the exercise of limited jurisdiction of revision, the High Court would not have found any reason to upset and reverse the findings of fact ar-rived at by the trial court while disposing of the suit before it in accordance with the practice and procedure of a court of small causes.
4. We find merit in the submission that the remand was unwarrant-ed. When both the parties were prepared to argue the matter on the material available and have the issues raised before the High Court decided thereon, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter affording the parties an opportunity of adducing further evidence which none of them was seeking.
5. Inasmuch as we find the order of remand uncalled for, the im-pugned order of the High Court is set aside. The High Court has not recorded any finding of its own on any of the points at issue arising for decision in the case. We deem it proper to send the matter back to the High Court for deciding the revision in accor-dance with law.
6. The impugned order dated 20th December, 1999 is set aside. The revision shall stand restored on the file of the
High Court. The High Court shall, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing, decide the revision in accordance with law on the mate-rial available before it.
7. In view of the time that has already been lost, the High Court would do well to take up the revision for expeditious hearing and decision.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
