MRS. RENA DREGO versus LALCHAND SONI, ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 197 · Decided: 05-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MRS. RENA DREGO 
v. 
LALCHAND SONI, ETC. 
MARCH 5, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, en., S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
A 
B 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947- C 
Sec,. 13(1)(g)-Eviction of Tenant-Bona.fide requirement by landlady for. 
personal use-Suit for Eviction-Rejected by Trial Court-On appeal decree 
for eviction granted-Quashed by High Court on the grounds of discrepancy 
in the evidence of appellant and failure to specify the plinth area of the 
apartment she was living in-On appeal held, no legal requirement t0 specify D 
the plinth area-Undue importance given to the discrepancy in the evidence 
of landlady-High Court not justified in quashing the decree of Eviction-,-
Decree a/Eviction restored. 
Constitution .of India, 1950-Article 227-Supervisory Jurisdiction ·of 
High Court-Exercise of-Held, High Court to confine to the scrutiny of the E 
records and proceedings of the lower tribunal--Not to disturb the findings 
of facts by relying on fresh materials. 
Words & Phrases 
"Reasonable "-Meaning of in the Context of sec. 13 (l)(g) of Bombay . F 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
The appellant landlady filed an Eviction Suit under Sec. lJ(l)(g) of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, on the 
ground that she needed the tenanted premises for her own occupation as she G 
was finding it difficult to accommodate her large family in the place she was 
living in. The Trial Court rejected her suit. On appeal, the appellate Court 
granted a decree for Eviction. The respondent tenant filled a writ petition in 
the High Court, which quashed the Eviction Order on the grounds that there 
was discrepancy in the evidence of the appellant regarding the flat of her 
eldest son and that she failed to specify the plinth area of the apartment when H 
197 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A wa!: living in. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court erred in quashing the decree of Eviction 
passed by a competent court on satisfaction of the ground under Sec. 13(1)(g) 
B of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
(205-B] 
1.2. The High Court has traversed far beyond the limit of its 
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution when the 
Single Judge reversed the decree of eviction which was based on findings 
C of facts arrived at by the fact-finding authority upon the evidence on record. 
It would have been well for the High Court to remind itself that it was not 
exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but 
supervisory .iurisdiction under Article 227 which obliges the High Court to 
confine to the scrutiny of the records and proceedings of the lower tribunal. 
D By relying on fresh materials which were not before the tribunal, the High 
Court should not have disturbed findings of facts in exercise of such 
supervisory jurisdiction. It is new well settled that power 11nder Article 227 
is one of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to upset conclusions 
of facts, however erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so 
perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. 
E 
[200-F-G] 
Waryam Singh & Am: v. Amaranth & Anr, AIR (1954) SC 215; 
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal. v. Laxmibai R, Tarte & Am:, AIR (1975) SC 
1297; Mis India Pipe Fitting Co. v. FakruddingMA. Baker & Am:, (1978) 
SC 45 and Sukbhir Narain v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR (1987) 
F SC 1645, referred to. 
2. Whether the requirement is reasonable or not can only be .iudged 
from the facts since no straight-jacket formula can be evolved for it. It is 
difl1cult to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable". However, when 
G the landlady says that the needs more accommodation for her family, there 
is no scope for doubting the reasonableness of her requirement. There is no 
dispute in the fact that the appellant is now living in a small apartment with 
her husband and grown up sons. The respondent tenant is in occupation of 
yet another flat situated in the same locality. If the respondent tenant is 
evicted from his tenanted premises, the hardship if any would not be more 
H then the hardship which the appellant landlady is facing now due to shortage 
l
RENA DREGO v. LALCHAND SONI [THOMAS, J.] 
199 
ofspace. (202-G; 203-F-G) 
Krishchand Moorjimal v. Bai Kalavati, AIR (1973) Bomba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.