KALPANA VYAS versus RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 29-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
KALPANA VYAS
v.
RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI
(Civil Appeal No.10811 of 2018)
OCTOBER 29, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.227 – Jurisdiction of High Court
– Scope of – Eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlady against
the respondent-tenant on ground of bona fide need – Petition
dismissed by Rent Tribunal – Appellate Tribunal set aside the order
of the Rent Tribunal – High Court restored the order of the Rent
Tribunal – Held: High Court while allowing the respondent’s writ
petition held that the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant’s
appeal with  casual approach and failed to record any categorical
finding on the plea of bona fide need – Having held that, the High
Court had two options, either to remand the case to the Appellate
Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to decide the
matter itself on merits – High Court ought to have resorted to the
first option and remanded the case back to the Appellate Tribunal,
since it was hearing the matter in its writ jurisdiction u/Art.227 and
it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an
Appellate Court – High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on
its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal – There was
no factual finding recorded on the question of bona fide need –
Case remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on
merits – Rent Control and Eviction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The need to remand the case to the Rent
Appellant Tribunal occasioned because the High Court, while
allowing the respondent’s writ petition, came to a conclusion and
accordingly held that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the
appellant’s appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any
categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need. Having held
that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 572
572
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh
on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter
itself on merits in accordance with law. Since the High Court heard
the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in
detail like an Appellate Court.  It is for this reason, the High
Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the
case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 16] [576-A-B]
1.2 The High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case
on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal. This
approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant
because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first
appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide
need. [Paras 17, 18] [576-C-D]
1.3  It is for this reason that the finding of the High Court is
upheld in relation to the approach and the manner in which the
Rent Appellate Tribunal decided the appellant’s appeal but it
would be just and proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate
Tribunal for its decision on merits afresh in accordance with law.
Impugned order is modified to the extent that the case is
remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 19, 20] [576-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10811
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated  02.01.2018 of the  High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 5403 of 2015.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Satyendra Kumar, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Utkarsh Tiwari, Ms. Khushboo Vinodray
Malkan, Bhaskar Singh, Ms. Dharita P.Malkan, Advs. for
the Respondent.
KALPANA VYAS v. RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 02.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5403/2015 whereby the High Court has
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
3. The issue involved in the appeal is short, as also the f

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