N. ESWARI versus K. SWARAJYA LAKSHMI

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 15-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

N. ESWARI v. K.SWARAJYA LAKSHMI 
501 
-
)-
of 70 years without there being anyone to look after her. 
A 
This finding of fact arrived at by the RentController and 
the Appellate Authority, cannot be said to be perverse and 
arbitrary. The High Court was not justified in interfering 
with such concurrent finding of fact in the exercise of its 
revisional jurisdiction and come to a different finding on 
B 
the question of bonafide need of the landlady/respondent. 
The only ground on which the High Court had set aside 
the concurrent orders of the courts below is that since 
_._ 
the landlady was not having any other residential house 
at Vijayawada where she was planning to settle, it must c 
be held that the requirement was bonafide. According to 
the High Court, the landlady/respondent was the best 
judge for her residential requirement and she can choose 
any place where she can settle down for various reasons. 
It is an admitted position that the landlady, who is D 
-"""' 
permanently residing in Hyderabad with her family 
consis.ting of a son and two daughters and she has got 
two houses there, only because she has expressed her 
desire to. stay at this old age of 70 years in the tenanted 
premises, it cannot be said that the requirement of the 
E 
landlady has been proved to be genuine. [Paras 9, 11, 12, 
13 and 14] [503-G-H; 504-A; 505-A-F; 506-B-D] 
t 
Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. vs. Mis S. Chokesiri and Co. 
1989 (1) sec 19, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
F 
1989 (1) sec 19 
Relied on 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppealNo. 6261 
of 2009. 
G 
,..... 
~ 
From the· Judgment & Order dated 25.11.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil 
Revision Petition No. 4311 of 2006. 
H 
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
( 
A 
Prabha Swami for the Appellant. 
->f 
... 
Om Prakash Mishra, KRL Sarma, Ghan Shyam Vasisht 
for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. We are invited in this appeal to decide whether the High 
;l 
Court was justified, in the facts and circumstances of the 
c present case in its revisional jurisdiction, in re-appreciating the 
facts and setting aside th~ order of the Rent Controller, 
Vijayawada dated 31st of October, 2001 and the order of the 
Appellate Authority, Vijayawada dated 21st of December, 
2005. 
"" 
D 
3. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering 
~ 
with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts 
below. 
4. The appellant is a tenant in respect of the premises in 
E question since 1982. In or about the year 2000, the landlady/ 
respondent herein filed an application for eviction of the tenant/ 
appellant under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) read with Section 10(2)(i) 
of AP. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,· 1960 
(in short, "the Act") before the Rent Controller on the ground that 
F .the landlady/respondent bonafide required the premises in 
question and also the tenanVappellant was a willful defaulter in 
payment of rent. 
5. Parties adduced evidence and finally, the Rent 
Controller, Vijayawada, by its final order dated 31st of October, 
G 2001, rejected the eviction petition inter alia holding that the 
landlady/respondent had failed to prove that the tenant/appellant 
... 
~ 
was a defaulter in payment of rent and in so far as the bonafide 
need of the premises in question was concerned, it was held 
that the landlady/respondent had two houses at Hyderabad. and 
H the landlady was residing in Vijayawada with her family 
N. ESWARI v. K.SWARAJYA LAKSHMI 
503 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] 
..... 
.,._ 
members consisting of one son and two daughters for the last 
A 
31 years. 
6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was carried to the 
Appellate Authority, namely, Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Appellate Authority, Vijayawada. The Appellate Authority also 
B 
affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada and 
dismissed the appeal. A Civil Revision Petition was then filed 
in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the 
landlady/respondent against the aforesaid concurrent orders of 
rejection of the eviction petition and by the impugned order, the c 
High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of rejection and 
directed the eviction of the tenant/appellant. 
' • 
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High 
' 
Court, this Special Leave Petition has been filed at the instance 
~ 
.... 
of t

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