MADAN LAL PURI versus SAIN DAS BERRY

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 27-07-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM, A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR

Judgment (excerpt)

933 
MADAN LAL PURI 
v. 
SAIN DAS BERRY 
July 27, 1971 
A 
re. A. VAIDIALINGAM, A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, ss. 14(1)(e) and 39(2)-Jurisdiclio11 of 
High Court. 
The respondents who was the landlord of certain premises, filed an 
application under s. 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for the 
eviction of the appellant, who was the lessee, on the ground inter alia, 
C 
that the respondent required the premises bo.nafide for his occupation as 
a residence for himself and his family members. The Rent Controller found 
that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide and dismissed the ap-
plication. The order was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribu-
nal. Tho respondent filed an appeal to the High Court under s. 39(2) of the 
Act Before the High Cow:t both parties agreed that the case should he 
remanded to the Tribunal for a finding on the question whether the pre-
mises available with the respondent could be considered to be •reasonably 
D 
suitable residential accommodation' as contemplated by s.- 14(l)(e). 
On 
remand, the Tribunal reported that the premises in the occupation of the 
respondent were not reasonably sufficient for the respondent and his family. 
The appellant however contended before the High Court, ignoring this 
finding of the Tribun,J, that on the concurrent findings of the two sub· 
ordinate authorities that the landlord's requirement was not bonafide, there 
was no question of law involved and so the High Court had no jurisdic-
tion under s. 39(2) to consider the correctness of those findings. The High 
E 
Court rejected the contention and held, that, in view of the finding on 
remand the decision of the subordinate authorities dismissing the respon. 
dent's application was erroneous. 
fn appeal to this Court, 
HELD: This Court in Kam/a Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra, C.A. No. 2150 
of 1966 dated 26-9-1969 held that a finding on the issue whether the re-
quiremenl of a landlord is bonafide is a finding on mixed questions of 
law and fact and not on facts only. Therefore, it was open to the High 
Court, when exercising jurisdiction under s. 39(2), to consider in proper 
cases the correctness of such a finding. 
[939E-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 848 of 
p 
1971. 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 110-D 
of 1966. 
Hardev Singh, K. P. Kapur and H. L Kapur, for the appel-
~~. 
H 
S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the res-
pondent. 
A 
R 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORT5 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J.-In thas appeal, Mr. Hardev Singh, learned 
counsel on behalf of the tenant-appellant, challenges the judg-
ment and order dated December 7, 1970 of the Delhi High Court 
.iJi S.A.O. No. 110-D of 1966. Special leave has been granted by 
this Court limited to the question whether the High Court was 
justified, in view of s. 39(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 
(hereinafter called the Act) in setting aside the decisions of the 
two subordinate authorities, dismissing the application filed 
by 
the respondent-landlord for evicting the appellant. 
The facts leading up to this appeal may be brielly stated. 
The appellant took on lease, the first lloor of the premises in 
question from the respondent on January 22, 1964 on a monthly 
rent of Rs. 250. The respondent who was the owner of the entire 
premises was then occupying the ground floor. 
The landlord 
filed an application, before the Rent Controller on November 26, 
1964 for eviction of the appellant from the portion in his occupa-
tion as lessee, on two grounds; (a) that the tenant has sub-let a 
part of the premises, and (b) that he required the premises bona 
fide for his occupation as a residence himself and his family 
members. The latter claim was based under cl. (e) of the proviso 
to sub-section (I) of s. 14 of the Act, which is as follows:-
"that the premises let for residential purposes are re-
quired bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a 
residence for himself or for any member of his family 
dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any 
person for whose benefit the premises are held and that 
the landlord or such person has no other reasonably 
suitable residential accommodation;" 
The tenant opposed the claim of the landlord on both the 
grounds. 
He denied the allegation of sub-lett

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