N. PRABHAKAR RAO versus J.R. RAMESH KUMAR@RAMESHJI

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 02-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N. PRABHAKAR RAO 
v. 
J.R. RAMESH KUMAR@ RAMESHn 
NOVEMBER 2; 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Rent and £viction 
. 
. 
AndhraPradeshBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: 
Ss. 22 and10(.3)(a)-Revisional power of High Court._:...Residential as 
well as non-residential premises-Landlord seeking eviction of tenant on ground 
of bona fide requirement-Rent Coniroller dismissing eviction petition r.ecord-
ing a finding that requirement of the provision were noi satisfied-Appeal of 
landlord dismissed by appellate authority-But High Courl in revision allow-
ing the petition of landlord-:-Held, having regard to revisional powers of High 
Court unless in the opinion of High Court.for reasons to be recorded, the order 
assailed before it suffers from an illegality, irregularity or impropriety, the 
same cannot be interfered with, more so when it is based on concurrent findings 
of fact-High Cou11 did not indicate any reasons for not sustaining the order 
of appellate authority-Matter remanded to High Court for· decision afresh-
Revision. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7457 of2001. 
. 
From the Judgeinent and Order dated 5.9.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P, No~ 5093 of 1996. 
P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar and V.G. Prag·i:tsam for the Appellant. 
M.N Rao, S. Sadasiva Reddy and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Respond-
ent. 
TI1e following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
This appeal is directed against the o.i;der of the High Comt of Andhra 
Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 5093 ofJ996 dated September 5, 2000, 
H · allowing the revision filed by the respondent-landlord and setting aside the 
654 
i 
-. 
,. 
N. PRABHAKAR RAO v. J.R. RAMESH KUMAR 
655 
order of the appellate authority in R.A. No. 97 of 1991 dated July 12, 1996 
confirming the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secundrabad in R.C. No. 
355 of 1980 dated December 31, 1990. 
The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the .landlord of the 
building bearing Mw1icipal Assessment No. 7-3-181 to 183 and 209 situated 
at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad (for short, 'the building'). The appellant obtained 
the building which comprises of both residential as well as non-residential 
portions, from the respondent on the monthly rent of Rs. 160 under the agree-
ment of tenancy dated February 5, 197 4. The respondent filed eviction petition 
R.C. No. 355 of 1980 praying for eviction of the appellant from the building 
A 
B 
on as many as three grounds; the only ground with which we are concerned 
· C 
here is bona .fide requirement of the respondent under Section 10(3)(a) of 
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for 
short, 'the Act'). The appellant contested the petition denying that the need of 
the respondent was bona fide. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the 
evidence placed before him, came to the conclusion that the requirements of 
the said provision were not satisfied and dismissed the eviction petition. On 
appeal the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Cowt - Appellate Authority 
under the Act - on scrutiny of the evidence including the additional evidence, 
allowed to be adduced by the parties, dismissed the appeal - R.A. No. 97 of 
1991 - on July 12, 1996. The respondent carried the matter in revision before 
the High Court in C.R.P. No. 5093 of 1996 which was allowed by the im-
pugned order. That is how this appeal came to be filed. 
Mr. P. Narasimha, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that 
D 
E 
both with regard to residential portion as well as non-residential portion of the 
building, the trial comt recorded specific finding that the alleged need of the 
respondent was not bona fide, which was upheld by the appeUate authority; the 
F 
High Court without examining the correctness of those findings of fact, re-
corded its own finding upholding the claim of the respondent. 
Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, 
has endeavoured to sustain the order of the High Court on the ground that by 
a reasoned order the High Court came to the conclusion that the need of the 
respondent was bona fide and ordered eviction and therefore the findings of 
the appellate authority as well as the trial comt will be deemed to have been 
dealt with and set aside. 
G 
We have perused the order of the High Court under challenge as well 
H 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.

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