ATMA S. BERAR versus MUKHTIAR SINGH

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 12-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ATMA S. BERAR 
A 
V. 
MUKHTIAR SINGH 
DECEMBER 12, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ. ] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: 
c 
Section I 5(5)-Revisiona.l jurisdiction of High Court-&ope of 
Sections 13(3)(a) and 15(5)-Eviction petition-On ground of 
requirement of landlord for his own occupati_ofl-'-Court below passing eviction 
order-High Court setting it aside in the light of events taking place during 
pendency of proceedings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-Justification D 
of-Held: High Court not justified in interfering with findings of facts since 
such events have no effect on the bona tides and need found proved by courts 
below. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 7 Rule 7-Power of Court to take note of subsequent events-
Power exists but exercisable subject to three conditions : (i) event must be 
brought promptly to notice of Court (ii) consistently with rules of procedure 
and affording opposite party opportunity to meet the same, and (iii) must have 
material bearing on right to relief 
E 
F 
Appellant-landlord, a member of Indian Revenue Service, 
constructed a residential house. After retirement he lived there with his 
wife and later let it out partly to respondent-tenant and shifted to 
industrial town for his profession. Ten years later appellant-landlord filed 
eviction petition since he wanted the premises for his own occupation. Rent G 
Controller passed an eviction ord_er. Appellate Authority upheld the same. 
However, High Court set aside the order in light of the events .which took 
place during pendency of proceedings. Hence the present appeal. 
Respondent-tenant contended that the findings arrived at by Rent 
47 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Controller and Appellate Authority were vitiated and High Court was 
justified in interfering in the light of the event which had taken place 
during the pendency of the proceedings. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. The object of conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High 
Court, by Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 
1949, is to enable it satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of an 
order made by the Controller or the proceedings before him. (55-8( 
Ram Das v. Ishwar Chander and Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 131; Prativa Devi 
C v. T. V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353; Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand 
Gupta, (1999( 6 SCC 222; Mudigonda Chandra Mouli Sastry v. Bhimanepal/i 
Bikshalu and Ors., (1999( 7 SCC 66 and Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal and Ors., 
(2001 J 2 sec 762, referred to. 
D 
2. The desire of the landlord to be in his own house and live 
comfortably in his own home-castle, restricting his movements so as to 
adjust with ailing physique and weakening faculties is not unnatural, 
illusory, a pretext or mere pretence for getting rid of the tenant. Fed up 
by the litigation and alarmed by the delays in the eviction matters landlord 
offered the tenant to sell his house so that he could settle himself by 
E utilizing the sale proceeds in some other house but in the heart of city 
which he loves, for he was born there and remained attached to it in spite 
of moving at places. There is no evidence adduced nor any material 
brought on record to hold that the landlord had ever tried to sell the house 
to anyone other than the tenant himself. Further he has not felt shy of 
F admitting having written the two letters, rather having negotiated the sale 
with the tenant. He assigned reasons which sound reasonable and probable 
and explains his conduct. His determination to live in his own house is 
emboldened by the attitude of tenant. Also the appellate authority inferred 
that appellant's links with the city were still alive from the entries 
coittained in the passport showing the landlord's frequent movements 
G between India and Canada. (54-8-FJ 
Ram Das v. /shwar Chander and Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 131; Gulabbai v. 
Na/in Narsi Vohra and Ors., (1991( 3 SCC 483; Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad 
Khan, (1979) 1SCC273 and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 
H (199916sec222, referred to. 
A. S. BERAR v. MUKHTIAR SINGH [R.C. LAHOTl;J.] 
49 
3. The power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well- A 
settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by three riders: firstly, 
the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the 
Court; secondly, it should be brought to the notice of the Court consistently 
with rul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.