JULIETA ANTONIETA TARCATO versus SULEIMAN ISMAIL

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 811 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

- -~ 
JULIETA ANTONIET A TARCATO 
A 
v. 
SULEIMAN ISMAIL 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[B.P. SINGH AND H.S. BED!, JJ.] 
B 
,., 
Rent Control and Eviction-Termination of tenancy-Bonafide 
requirement-Dismissal of eviction petition since in the changed circumstances 
the need of landlady did not survive-Correctness of-Held: Landlady has c 
every right to occupy her own premises and cannot be compelled to share 
accommodation with her brother-co-owner in another premises-In the 
changed circumstances even if other family members no longer required the 
premises, the bonajide personal need of the landlady for the premises owned 
by her exclusively survived-Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
D 
Appellant owned premises and was residing therein with her mother, 
nephews and niece. She suffered serious burn injuries and moved to the 
premises owned by her two brothers. At that time respondent was in need of 
accommodation since the premises occupied by him had collapsed. Appellant 
and the respondent entered into an agreement and let out her premises to the 
respondent on leave and licence basis. After several years, appellant decided E 
not to burden her brother and return to her own premises. She issued notice 
for termination of tenancy and thereaher filed eviction petition on the ground 
of her own reasonable and bonafide need and also her nephews and niece to 
pursue their studies. Trial Court dismissed the petition since the 
... 
accommodation in her brother's premises was sufficient for the appellant as F 
well as other who were residing with her and as such her requirement was 
not reasonable. Appellant filed an appeal. Appellate Court allowed the appeal 
holding that the appellant had made out a case of bona fide personal need of 
suit premises. Respondent filed writ petition. High Court allowed the same 
holding that in the changed circumstances and subsequent events, the need 
of the appellant did not survive. Hence the present appeals. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The finding of bonajide personal need recorded by the 
811 
H 
812 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 s. C.R. 
.....
A Appellate Court is a finding of fact based on the evidence on. record. Having 
-...i -
considered the evidence on record, it is found that the finding recorded by the 
Appellate Court did not deserve to be set aside. In fact, the High Court also 
was of the same view, but in the changed circumstances, having regard to the 
events that took place during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the High 
B 
Court interfered with the order of the Appellate Court. High Court was not 
justified in doing so. It cannot be lost sight of that ·the premises which the 
appellant required for her personal bonafide need belonged to her. Trial Court 
made much of the fact that the appellant had also pleaded her bonafide need of 
providing accommodation to other members of the family. While doing so the 
I 
Trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that apart from the requirement 
c of other members of the family, the appellant also required the premises for 
her own accommodation. Thus, even if the other members of the family no 
longer required the premises, the requirement of the appellant survived. She 
had every right to occupy her own premises and she could not be told that she 
should share accommodation with her brother in another apartment. 
D 
(Para 11) (817-D-F; 818-A, BJ 
1.2. High Court erred in holding that since the appellant became a co-
owner of the premises upon the death of her brother she had a right to reside 
" 
in those premises and, therefore, her need for the premises owned by her 
exclusively did not subsist. On death of one of the brothers, appellant and her 
E sister gave their consent for the transfer of the flat in the name of the second 
brother, who was a co-owner of the flat alo.ng with her late brother. Even if 
this fact is ignored one cannot compel the owner of the premises which 
exclusively belongs to her to share accommodation with a co-owner of hers in 
another premises. The appellant being the owner of the suit premises, her 
need being bonafide and reasonable, it would be unfair to compel her to share 
• 
F the accommodation in another premises with its co-owner. (Para 121 
(818-B, C, DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3424-3425 of 
2005. 
G 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.7.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in C.A. Stamp No. 18692/04 in Writ Petition No. 4

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