KUSUM LATA SHARMA versus ARVIND SINGH

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 25-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
KUSUM LATA SHARMA
v.
ARVIND SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3111 of 2023)
APRIL 25, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction
– Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seeking
to evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement –
Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On revision,
the High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on the
ground that appellant had not been forthright in the description of
the property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner
and the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed
– On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings along
with the site plan attached, it makes evident that the appellant gave
out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available
in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her
occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement – Appellant
had further made position clear in her cross-examination – Thus, it
is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the
property – The material placed on record indicate that the appellant
and other members of the family might be having title or interest in
some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate
against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been
accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent
reasons – Judgment of High Court set aside and the orders of Rent
Controller restored.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – s.25-B(8) – Limited jurisdiction
under – Held: In terms of the proviso to s.25-B(8), a limited window
is allowed to the extent that the High Court may call for the record,
for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order had been passed
in accordance with law – Pure finding of fact is not open for
interference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of
law.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 493
493
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD. 1. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the
same with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any
such misdescription of the property which would amount to a
material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have
caused prejudice to the respondent’s tenants. [Para 18][509-G-
H]
2. Noteworthy, it is that it had not been the case of the
respondents that they were not the tenants in the premises in
question. The only attempt on the part of the respondents had
been to suggest that other properties and accommodations were
available with the family. Such suggestion on the part of
respondents had not been accepted by the Rent Controller as
operating against the assertion of bona fide requirement of the
appellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentially
been the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record.
There was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague
ground of want of clarity about description of the property in
question. [Para 19][510-A-C]
3. The appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other
referred members of the family might be having title or interest
in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly
operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had
been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with
cogent reasons. [Para 22][510-E]
4. The findings on bonafide requirement of the appellant in
relation to both these cases could not have been disturbed by
the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of
clarity about identification of the property in question. [Para
23][510-F]
Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 549 :
[2003] 2 SCR 580; Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua
(2022) 6 SCC 30 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 2 SCR 580
referred to
Para 5
(2022) 6 SCC 30
referred to
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3111 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in RCREV No. 78 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 3112 of 2023.
Vinay Kr. Garg, Sr. Adv., Sagar Saxena, Rajeev Maheshwaranand
Roy, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Debabrata Dash, Apoorva
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against similar orders dated
17.04.2018, as passed i

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