M/S VARIETY EMPORIUM versus V. R. M. MOHD. IBRAHIM NAINA

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 27-11-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
101 
M/S. VARIETY EMPORIUM 
v. 
V. R. M. MOHD. IBRAHIM NAINA 
November 27, 1984 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD C. J., AND M .. P. THAKKAR n 
C!>nstitution of India, 1950, Article 136-Power to grant special leave in 
Rent cases where three courts have accepted the plea of bona fide personal require· 
ments-Onus of proof lies on the petilioner to prove unjustness of the decisions of 
the Court as to bona fide personal need-Subsequent events must also be looked 
into bJ the cOurts cis regards continued requirement for personal purposes-Tamil 
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) A.ct, 1960, Section 10 (3) (i) and (iii), 
scope of, 
The respondent-landlord through an instrument inter vi'vos, filed seven peti· 
tions for ejectment under section 10 (3) (i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 as amended 
by Act I of 1980) against seven different toenants. Four out of these occupied shop 
premises on the ground floor while the other three occupied residential premises 
on the first floor of a building situated at Door No. 14, Pursuawalkam High 
Road, Madras. The plea of bona fide personal repuirem~nt was accepted by the 
trial Judge who decreed all the petitioner and passed orders of eviction against 
every one of the seven tenants. One of these, who occupied a so-caHcd shop 
measuring 4' x 4' under a stairway, and another tenant in the residential portion 
on the first floor acquiesced in the decree of evictiJn passed against them. Five 
out of the seven tenants filed appeals against the orders of their eviction. The 
Appellate Authority dismissed all the three appear. of the tenants of the shop 
premises on the ground floor, but allowed the appeals filed by the two tenants of 
the residential premises on the first floor. 
Thus the respondent succeeded in 
obtaining decrees for possession agaidst all the four tenants on the ground floor 
and one tenant on the first floor. 
Against the said orders of the Appellate 
Court, the appellant alone preferred a Civil Revision Petition (CRP. 122 of 
1979) before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition. Hence 
the tenant's appeal by special leave of the Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : J. 1 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to ~nt special 
lca\11 to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution has to be exercised sparin .. 
a;IY. Coocurrence of three Courts, as in this case that the respondent has 
proved that _he requires the suit premises bona fide for his personal need, 
ff 
undoubtedly has relevance on the question whether the Supreme Court should 
.\ 
~ 
r-
• 
• 
YARIEtY EMPORIUM v. V. R. MOHD. 
io~ 
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to review a parti~ 
cular decision of the Courts b~low. But, that cannot possibly mean that injustice 
must be perpetuated because it has been done three times in a case. [105G·H] 
I. 2 Ia the instant caseJ by drawing a priori conc1usions the Courts have 
denied justice to the appellant. The trial court deluded itself into believing 
as proved, what remained to be proved by the production of evidence which 
could have been produced but was not only not produced but was suppressed. The 
first appellate court decided the question of landlord's bor.a fide requirement by 
, the application of formula which confuses 'requirement' or 'need' with 'desire'. 
And, the High Court refused to apply its mind to a question which, if eXami-
ned, could have altered the course of justice. [106E-FJ 
I. 3 The burden of showing that a concurrent decision of two or more 
Courts or Tribunals i~ manifestly unjusl lies on the appe11ant. But once that 
burden is discharged, it is not only the right but the duty of the Supreme Court 
to remedy the injustice. [I llA·Bl 
I. 4 The argument that such an interference by the Supreme Court may 
lead and in practice, does lead to different standards being applied by different 
courts to find out whether a concurrent decision is patently illeg31 or unjust is 
inevitable in the present dispensation. Quantatively, the Supreme Court has a 
vast jurisdiction which extends over matters as far apart as Excise to Elections 
and Constitution to Crimes. The Court sits in Benches and not en bane, as the 
AmeriCan Supreme Court does. Indeed, even if the entire Court were to sit to 
hear every one of the matters which have been filed during any year a certain 
amount of individuality in the response to inj

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