OM PRAKASH AND ORS. versus SMT. SUNHARI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 02-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SUNHARI DEVI AND ORS. 
MARCH 2, 1993 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Building (Ret,ulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: Section 21( l)(a)-Eviction petition-Comparative hardship-Bonafide 
requiremem-fl.e-assessnzent of evidence by High Court under its writ juris-
C dicrion-l'emiissibility of 
D 
Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950: Arts. 136, 22~rit jurisdiction of High 
Court-Re-Assessment of evidence- Permiw"bility of-Interference in such 
matters u11der Special Leave jurisdiction-Whether called for. 
"'"(. 
The appellant-landlords filed an eviction petition against respon-
dent-tenants on the ground that they required the shop premises for their 
own use. The prescribed authority dismissed the petition holding that the 
appellants' requirement was not bonafide and that greater hardship would 
be caused to the respondents than to the appellants. On appeal the 
E appellate authority held that the requirement of the appellants was 
genuine and bo11afide. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High 
Court and it observed that the appellate authority ought to have ascer-
tained the actual accommodation available in the property after excluding 
the accommodation necessary for residential purposes and •hould have 
F 
found out whether two rooms on the first Door could be spared for 
-
business. The High Court further observed that the appellate authority 
was not justified in entering into the question of privacy and that the 
appellants had failed to disclose their residential accommodation. The 
High Court thus quashed the order of the appellate authority and restored 
the appeal to the file of the appellate authority to be decided afresh after 
G hearing the parties and in the light of the observations made by It. This 
has been challenged in the present appeal by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellants, it wa• contended that It was not open to 
the High Court lo have reassessed the evidence, especially under its Writ 
H jurisdiction. 
144 
+ 
OM PRAKASH v. SUNHARI DEVI [BHARUCHA, J.] 
145 
On behalf of the Respondent it was contended that the findings of A 
the appellate authority were perverse and therefore a re-assessment of the 
evidence was called for. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. Even in a second appeal the High Court must restrict B 
itself to questions of law; all the more so in a writ petition. [147H] 
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court re-assessed the evidence and 
went beyond its legitimate jurisdiction. The intervention of this Court is 
therefore, called for, especially since the High Court has directed the 
appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh "in the light of the obser-
vations made above". This Court does not approve of some of those 
c 
! · 
observations. It is very difficult to see how a landlord can be asked to build 
alternate premises. It is also very difficult to see how a landlord who has 
asked for the eviction of a tenant from commercial premises can be faulted 
for not having given particulars of his residential accommodation and how D 
this can be treated as a purposeful attempt on his part to keep back 
relevant material from the court, which should be taken into consideration 
in deciding his bona fide need. [148A-C] 
2. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The order of 
the appellate authority dated 26th November, 1990 is restored. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 100 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.92 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 32805 of 1990. 
R.K. Jain and S.R. Setia for the Appellants. 
Rajinder Sachhar and K.C. Dua for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and 
order of the High Court at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed by 
F 
G 
the respondents and ordering that the appeal, the order which was im-
pugned in the writ petition, should be decided afresh in the light of the H 
146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
observations made in its judgment. 
B 
c 
The appellants are the landlords and the respondents the tenants. 
The appellants filed an eviction petition against the respondents under 
section 2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that they bonafide required the 
tenanted premises, a shop, for their own use. The prescribed authority 

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