M.S. ZAHED versus K. RAGHAVAN

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 01-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

M.S. ZAHED 
A 
v. 
K.RAGHAVAN 
DECEMBER I, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: 
S. 21 (/) (h)-Tenanted premises-Recovery of possession by landlord 
on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement-Held, requirement of C 
landlord has to be both bona fide and reasonable-Landlord had sufficient 
accommodation in his possession for requirement of his family members-His 
requirement not being reasonable, he was not entitled to an order of ejectment 
in his favour-However, as tenant agreed to vacate premises after expiry of 
4 years-Ordered accordingly in exercise of power under Article I 42 of the D 
Constitution of India-Constitution of India-Article 142. 
S.50--Revision-Power of High Court-Held, High Court entitled to 
re-appreciate evidence in order to examine legality as also correctness of 
judgment of trial court. 
The appellant-landlord filed a suit under Section 21(1) (h) of the E 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for possession of the premises in 
occupation of the respondent tenant on the ground of reasonable and bona 
fide requirement. The case of the landlord was that he purchased a double 
storeyed house in which in a portion of ground floor the respondent tenant 
was staying; and that he required the accommodation occupied by the tenant F 
for comfortable stay of his family members including his parents. The tenant 
resisted the suit contending that the landlord was in possession of substantial 
portion of the ground floor and the whole first floor, which was quite sufficient 
to meet the needs of his family members. The trial court decreed the suit 
holding that the accommodation available with the landlord was insufficient 
for his family and, therefore, his requirement for additional accommodation G 
was genuine. The tenant filed a revision petition under Sec. SO of the Act. 
The High Court appointed a Commissioner to report about the exact 
accommodation available with both the landlord and the tenant. The 
Commissioner submitted his report alongwith a sketch of the accommodation 
in occupation of the parties. The High Court allowed the revision application H 
'")17 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A and dismissed the suit holding that looking to the size of the family of the 
landlord and the accommodation available with him, it could not be said that 
he had any genuine and bona fide need for any extra accommodation. 
Aggrieved, the landlord filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the landlord that the High Court in exercise of 
B revision a I jurisdiction was not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact 
recorded by the trial court on relevant evidence; and that the need of the 
landlord had to be examined from his own point of view and the High Court 
erred in holding that the accommodation available with the landlord was 
sufficient On the other hand, for the tenant, it was contended that the powers 
C of revision available to the High Court under Sec.SO of the Act were wider; 
it had ample jurisdiction thereunder to correct the errors of fact and law 
committed by the trial court; and in view of the sketch and the report of the 
Commissioner the High Court was justified in holding that the need of the 
landlord could not be said to be genuine and bona fide. 
D 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court in revision under Sec. 50 of the Karnataka 
Rent Control Act, 1961 was entitled to re-appreciate the evidence with a view 
to finding out whether the order of the trial court was legal or correct. 
(223-EJ 
E 
1.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act shows that the High Court, 
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, can consider the question whether 
the order of the trial court was legal or correct. It is obvious that legality 
of the order of the Small Causes Court which would fall for consideration 
of the High Court would pertain to errors of law that might have been 
F committed by the said court. But so far as the correctness is concerned, 
whether the order sought to be revised was correct on facts or not will also 
fall for consideration of the High Court in exercise of its revisional 
jurisdiction. Unlike Sec. 115 C.P.C. or power of revision conferred on the 
High Court under other statutes, once the Act enabled the High Court to 
look into the 'correctness' of the orders sought to be revised, it cannot be 
G said that the High Court would be disabled from considering the quest

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