CHANDRIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. AND ANR. versus UMESH KUMAR VERMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 07-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHANDRIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. AND ANR. 
v. 
UMESH KUMAR VERMA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2001 
[R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982-Section 
14(8) proviso-Revisional Jurisdiction-High Court-Scope and power o.f-
Held: High Court hus to sati~fy itse(f whether the order ~f eviction is in 
accordance with law-Though revisional jurisdiction is only a part of the 
appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be equated with that ~fa fullJledged appeal. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant-landlords filed a snit for eviction of the respondent-
tenant from the suit premises nnder Section ll(l)(c) of the Bihar Building 
D 
(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 on the grounds that the suit 
premises was reasonably and in good faith required by the appellants-
landlords for their use and occupation and that the suit premises was also 
required for starting a clinic for the son-in-law of appellant No. 2. 
The trial court held that suit premises was genuinely and bona .fide 
required by the appellants and accordingly ordered eviction. However, 
High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent-tenant under 
Section 14(8) of the Act on the ground that it was only a desire of appellant 
No. 2 to open a clinic in the ground floor of the suit premises for his son-in-
law and, therefore, the appellants-landlords did not require the suit premises 
reasonably and in good faith for occupation of the son-in-law. Hence this 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court · 
HELD: 1. Section 14 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) 
Control Act, 1982 is a special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction 
E 
F 
G 
on the ground of bona fide requirement. In a revision petition filed under 
proviso to Section 14(8) of the Act, the High Court has to satisfy itself as to 
whether the order of eviction passed under Section 14 of the Act was in 
H 
173 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
accordance with law. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction depends on 
the language of the statute. Though revisional jurisdiction is only a part of 
the appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged 
appeal. (176-E] 
B 
Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222, 
c 
relied on. 
2. The High Court did not take into consideration the finding of the 
trial court, which is based on evidence on record. The finding of the High 
Court that it is a mere,pesire of the appellant to open a clinic in the suit 
premises is not acceptable as the son-in-law has already started practice in 
one room of the suit premises. (177-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1999. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.98 of the Patna High Court in 
E 
C.R. No. 231 of 1997. 
Amrendra Sharan, Sarnir Ali Khan and lrshad Ahmad for the Appellants. 
A.N. Bardiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. This appeal by special leave is from the order of the 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Revision 
F 
No.231of1997. The High Court allowed the application filed under Section 
14(8) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for 
short 'the Act') by setting aside the order of eviction dated 10.0 l.1997 passed 
by the Munsif !st, Begusarai in Title (Eviction) Suit No.15 of 1995. 
G 
The appellants-landlords filed a suit for eviction of the respondents-
tenants from the suit premises under Section ll(l)(c) of the Act i.e. on the 
ground that the suit premises was reasonably and in good faith required by the 
landlords for use and occupation. 
The appellant No. I, since deceased was the father of the appellant No.2. 
H 
The eviction suit was filed by both the above two appellants and during the 
CHANDRIKA PRASAD v. U.K. VERMA [PHUKAN, J.] 
175 
pendency of the civil revision before the High Court, the appellant No. I died 
A 
and the name of his wife was substituted. The appellant No.2 has two daugh-
ters and the eldest daughter was married to Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and has 
"'--
no son. The ground for eviction was that the suit premises was required for 
starting a clinic for the said son-in-law of the appellant No.2, who has been 
living with his father-in-law since his marriage in 1992. It was alleged that the 
B 
son-in-law was unemployed though he was a medical graduate and registered 
as a Medical Practitioner. The suit was filed agai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.