NETA RAM versus JIWAN LAL

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 17-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
623 
NETA RAM 
v. 
JIWAN LAL 
(S. K. DASS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Reni Control-Re-building of prem.ise8-Rona .fide8 and 
means of the landlord-East Punjab L rban Rent Restriction 
Act, /!14.? (East Punj. 3 ':! 1949), "· 
J.5(5)~Potiala and .East 
Puf\jab States Union Urban Rent Restrirtion Ordinance, 2006 
B. K. (8 of 2006 BK), ss. 13, 16(4), 19. 
The appJication for eviction against the appellant was 
based inter alia on the ground tha.t the premises in suit were 
dilapidated and the landlord wished to rebuild them after 
dismantling the struc;ture. 
l'he Rent Controller dismissed the 
application observing that there was hardly any proof that the 
bu,[ding was in a dilapidated condiri9n and that the landlord 
had no means to rebuild the premises. The appellate authori-
ty 
con~irined the finding 
l:olding that the premises w{re 
in good condition and that 1be l<indlord was not, in good 
faith, wanting to replace. lite building. An applica!ion pur:or~ 
ting to be under s. 15(5) of 1he Fait Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction A ct, 1949, was made before the High Court. The 
High Court following an earliCr decision of the sa1ne Court 
all Jwed the revision peti1ion holdini.!: that in determining the 
question of f'jectment, \vhat needs alone to be considert:d is 
whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the per1nises 
and that the condition of the premises is 'a wholJy irrelevant 
factor'. 
Held, that the investigation by the Rent Controller can-
not be confined only 
to 
the txistfnce of an intentinn 
in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intf'ntion 
must be hone~tJy l·eld in relation to the surrounding- circum-
stances, otherwise the very purpo~e of tlie Rent Restriction Act 
would be defeated. ff the landlords wt:re to come forward and 
to get tenants turnt"d ·out, on the bare nlea that they want to 
recon'ltfLICt the .house witho,1t first establishing, that the 
pl~a 
is bona fide with re~ard to all 
circurnst;:ince~, viz. that the 
h,"luSes need rtconstruct.ion or that they have the meari.s to 
reconstruct them. 
Held, further, that wheo the Tribunals have examined 
the facts after instructing them!lelves correctly about law, a 
C:turt of Revision should be slow to interf("'re \Vith rhe deci-
sioh, thus reached, unle9'.i it demonstrates by its own decision 
the impropriely of the order which it seeks to revise. 
Under s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric-
tion Act, 19t9, the powers of the High Court do not include 
January 1'1. 
1962 
Nda Ram 
v. 
Jiw.n1 Lt.I 
624 SUPREME COURT REPORnl [1962) SUPP. 
power!\ to pt"rverse a conrurrrnt finding witliout showinsr h.ow 
tho~e finrfin_~" arl"' l"'rroneous and without giving any substantial 
reason(. for its findin~. 
H2lfl, also, that a case cannot ht! an authoritv on a pair.t 
of fart an cl rach c•;• has to he examintd in the light of the 
circufTlstanct-s t-xisting. 
Moti 
11a'11 v. Suroj Bhan, (1960] 2 S. C. R,. 896, 
r.frrred to. 
Civrr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal 
No, 646 of i 961. 
Appeal by enPcial lPBve from the jud~ent 
and dPere11 dMPd A nril 7, 1961. of thn Punj!lb 
Hi~h C'llut in Clivil Revision No. 31'>4 of 1959. 
Go'f!Gl Singh, for the appPlla.tes. 
Rishan Narain and Naunit lal, for the respon-
drnt No. I. 
Hlfl2 .. fammrv, 17.-The Judgment of the 
Court was dPlivered bv 
lliJayat•lfoh J. 
HmAYA'l'TTT.LAH, J.-Thi~ is nn appral by 
special loav<' ag:ainat. an orrl<>r of tho High Court of 
Punj'lb at Cha.nrlhra.rh, rlBt<'d April 7, 1961. 
The apnellant.s a.ro five tenants, who have 
been evictecl from certain shops and chobaras in the 
town of Patia.fa, on t hA a11plication of the first 
rt'sponrlcnt, thti landlord. The application by the 
landlord was made in ,Jnne, 1957, under s. 13 of 
the P11.ti:da and E'l.st. Punjab StatAs Union Urban 
R<'nt lfostri1·tion Ordinance, 20(}6 BK (No. VIII of 
:?OOfi BK). 
The grounds urgt•rl by the landlord 
wcrr (•\) nen.pavment of rent b.v the tC'nants, (b) 
non pnym••nt of houeo tax by tho t<>nants and (cl 
that the shops WC're in a state of g-ri-a.t disrepair 
iincl W<>re clilapidatcd, and the landlord wished to 
rebuild tlwrn aftn dismantling the structun•s. The 
lanrllorrl :l\·orr<'rl that he had obtained sanction of 
the i\lnnicipal Committ<'e to a propo;rd plan of con-
Rtrnction, awl nc1•um11lat<'<I somo huilrling material 
before making the application. 
The tl'nants rc>'istrd the application. 
The 
Rc>nt C•.mtrollcr fram<·q i's111·s 1

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