M/S PURI INVESTMENTS versus M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 23-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
M/S PURI INVESTMENTS
v.
M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.227 – Supervisory control by High
Court – Eviction petition filed u/s.14 of Delhi Rent Control, 1958
on the ground that tenanted premises was sub-let to three medical
practitioners without consent of landlord – Rent Controller dismissed
the petition – Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the Rent
controller and ordered eviction – Tenants invoked provisions of
Art.227 before the High Court – High Court upset the order of
eviction passed by the appellate tribunal – On appeal, Held: Whether
the decision of High Court in upsetting order of eviction passed by
Appellate Tribunal suffered from any element of perversity or not –
High Court has restrictive nature of jurisdiction u/Art.227 – There
are three situations as to when a finding on facts or questions of
law would be perverse (a) Erroneous on account of non-
consideration of material evidence, or (b) Being conclusions which
are contrary to the evidence, or (c) Based on inferences that are
impermissible in law – There was overstepping of this boundary by
the supervisory Court – High Court had gone deep into the factual
arena to disagree with the fact finding forum – There is no dispute
that the three medical practitioners were in occupation of part of
the premises in question – The onus was on the tenants to establish
the degree of control they were maintaining over the said premises
for repelling the plea of sub-letting – Many factors were considered
by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which its decision was
against the tenants – Hence, there was no perversity on the basis of
which High Court could have interfered – High Court tested the
legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate
body and not as a supervisory Court u/Art. 227 which is
impermissible – High Court judgment set aside – Appellate Tribunal’s
finding restored – Delhi Rent Control, 1958 – s.14(1)(b).
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 280
280
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the judgment
under appeal had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree
with the final fact-finding forum. There is no dispute that the three
medical practitioners were in occupation of part of the premises
in question. The onus, under such circumstances, was on the
respondents to establish the degree of control they were
maintaining over the said premises for repelling the plea of sub-
letting or assignment or parting with possession. From the
passage of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sales
Ltd., it transpires that it was also the respondents’ obligation to
demonstrate that there was no monetary consideration on the
basis of which the medical practitioners were allowed to operate
from the subject premises. Though, it was a chemist shop,
evidence reveals that the portion of the premises of which the
three medical practitioners were in occupation consisted of
individual cabins and had separate telephone connections. These
are the factors, on the basis of which, the Appellate Tribunal came
to its conclusion against the respondents. [Para 12][289-D-F]
2. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate
Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have
interfered. The High Court tested the legality of the order of the
Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a
supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible. The finding
of the High Court that the appellate forum’s decision was
perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at
was itself perverse. [Para 13][291-E-F]
Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. (2017) 15 SCC
230 : [2017] 7 SCR 872; Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors.
v. Idrish Ali Laskar (2018) 2 SCC 485 : [2018]
1 SCR 272; Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance
Corporation of India (1998) 3 SCC 1 : [1998] 1 SCR
711 – relied on.
M/S PURI INVESTMENTS v.
M/S YOUNG FRIENDS AND CO. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) & Ors. v. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 217 :
[2009] 15 SCR 558; Smt. Rajbir Kaur & Anr. v. S
Chokesiri & Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19 : [1988] 2 Suppl.
SCR 310; Chimajirao K

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