KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA versus C.K.S. RAO

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 02-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA 
A 
v. 
C.K.S. RAO 
DECEMBER 2, 1997 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel alld Lodgillg House Rates Control Act, 1947: 
Sections 13-Al(l)(A)(ii) alld 13-A(2). 
Rent Colltrol and Eviction--Landlady was appoillted as Scielltific Of-
C 
fleer ill Bhabha Atomic Research Celltre as ce1tified by all Officer of the 
Departmellt-As per records she was owner of a Flat ill occupatioll of a 
tenallt-Evictioll of tenallt sought Oil groulld of bona fide requiremellt of 
landlady-Conc/usive11ess of the Ce1tificate-Held : Court cannot go behind 
the Certificate-Court also cannot further go into the question whether the D 
lalldlady was holdillg a scielltific post or not, she beillg a medical doctor and 
discharging duties as doctor. 
Rent Colltrol alld Evictioll-Lalldlord--Co-owller-Evictioll peti-
tion---Maintainability of-Tenant paid rent to a co-owne1-Held; Landlord 
can maintain eviction petition in the absence of any objection from other E 
co-owners--Moreover, once tenant paid rent to such a person he cannot raise 
objection in the eviction petition that such a person is not his landlord. 
Section 31-F-Rent Control and Eviction--Revisional Jurisdiction of 
High Cowt-Scope of-Certificate issued as per requirements of S.13-
F 
Al(J)(A)(ii)(b)--Conclusiveness of-Held: Revisional jurisdiction is 
limited-High Court not justified in going into the co1rectness of the Certificcte 
on basis of minor mistakes in spite of conclusiveness of Certificate under 
S.13- A(2}-High Cowt not justified in rendering its own finding that it is a 
colourable exercise of power-High Court also not justified in inteif ering with G 
the finding of Competent Authority regarding bona fide requirement of the 
landlady, unless the finding is perverse or unreasonable. 
Section 13-A-Rent Control and Eviction-Application for evic-
tion--Question of hardship-Held : Jn an application for eviction u/s 13-
Al ( 1 )A(ii) the question of hardship of parties not relevant.. 
H 
91 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A · 
The appellant-landlady was residing with her brother in a Flat 
situated on the ground floor of a building of a housing society. The 
appellant claimed to be the owner of a Flat No. 3 situated on the ground 
floor of the same building, which she had let out to the respondent. Finding 
that it was no longer possible to get on with her sister-in-law, the appellant 
B preferred an application for possession of Flat No. 3 alleging that she 
being a holder of a scientific post in the Department of Bhabha Atomic 
Research Centre (BARC) was entitled to invoke Section 13- Al(l)(A)(ii) 
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
She also enclosed necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was 
holding a scientific post in BARC and that she had no other suitable 
C premises for her residence in the local area where the suit premises was 
situated. The appellant also claimed that her claim was bona fide and her 
joint living with her brother's family was no longer possible for reasons 
given in the application. 
D 
The respondent resis_ted the application for eviction. It was alleged 
in the written statement that the appellan,t was not the owner of the suit 
flat; that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between them, 
that she was not holding a post of Scientific Officer in BARC; that Flat 
No. 1 on the ground floor was conveniently divided into Flat Nos. lA and 
1B and the appellant was in possession of one of the flats and that, 
E therefore, her claim was not bona fide. 
In the light of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the 
competent Authority held that the appellant had proved that she was the 
landlady qua the respondent-tenant as defined in the Act; that she was 
p 
holding a scientific post in BARC to enable her to invoke Section 13-
Al (l)(A)(ii) of the Act; that the Certificate produced by her was proved; 
that she had no suitable accommodation and that her claim for possession 
was a bona fide one. On those findings the Competent Authority passed 
an order of eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit flat. 
G 
The respondent-tenant preferred a revision petition before the High 
Court under Section 31-F of the Act. The High Court held that merely 
because BARC had chosen to style the appellant a "Scientific Officer", that 
would not detract the jurisdiction of the Court from finding out whether 
the appellant was, i

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