LexAMBADAS KHANDUJI SHINDE & ORS. versus ASHOK SADASHIV MAMURKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017] 4 S.C.R. 966 AMBADAS KHANDUJI SHINDE & ORS. v. ASHOK SADASHIV MAMURKAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.1525 of 2017) JANUARY 31, 2017 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, N. V. RAMANA AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. ] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115 - Revision - Interference with concurrent findings - Propriety of - Suit for C recovery of possession by appellants-landlords on ground of bona fide need - Decreed by trial court - Appellate court concurred with the findings of trial court in to to and upheld the decree - However, High Court allowed the revision petition by tenants-respondents - On appeal, held: High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent D factual findings while ex~rcising jurisdiction u/s. 115, CPC unless there is illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate Courts - It is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction - On facts, the trial court and the appellate court passed reasoned orders well within the jurisdiction conferred upon them and thus cannot be E regarded as perverse or based on no evidence - Furthe1; each of the reasons given by the High Court in reversing the concurrent findings .were specious - Tenants. granted six months time to vacate the premises, subject to the filing of usual undertaking - Rent Control and Eviction. F Rent Control and Eviction - Bona-fide need - Suit by landlord- father on ground of bona-fide need of his two sons to start kirana business from the suit property - Held: Need felt by the father as head of the family that his sons should be settled in independent businesses was genuine. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There was a manifest error on the part of the High Court in holding that the landlords failed to explain the circumstances in which they obtained vacant possession of one shop or on how it was being utilized. The findings of the trial H Court and the first appellate Court, indicat~ that in the shop of 966 AMBADAS KHANDUJI SHINDE & ORS. v. ASHOK 967 SADASHIV MAMURKAR & ORS. which vacant possession was obtained, a provision store was A being conducted jointly. In this background, it was found that the need felt by the father as head of the family that his sons should be settled in independent businesses was genuine. The co-owners cannot be compelled to carry on business jointly since they are the best judges of their need. The High Court B overlooked these findings and had arrived at a patently erroneous conclusion that there was no explanation from the landlords of the manner in which the shop which had fallen vacant was being utilized. There was in fact an explanation. Each of the reasons which weighed with the High Court in reversing the concurrent findings were hence specious. [Para 12] [970-G-H; 971-A-Bl C 1.2 Apart from the factual aspect, order lacks merit on the ground of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent factual findings while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of D illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate Courts. Under Section 115 CPC, it is not open for the High Court to correct errors of facts or law unless they go to root of the issue of jurisdiction. In the facts on hand, the Courts below had passed reasoned orders well within the jurisdiction conferred upon them. [Para 131 [971-C] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1525 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Civil Revision Application F No. 50 of 2013. Satyajit A. Desai, Harish Jain, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Appellants. Manish Pitale, Ms. D. S. Matwankar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the Respondents. G The Order of the Court was delivered by N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants herein who are landlords have approached this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22 11d September, 2014 H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. A passed in Civil Revision Application No. 50 of2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur wherein and whereby ·the learned Judge has allowed the Revision by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 3. The facts of the case in nuts
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.