P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS. versus SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 412 · Decided: 23-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS. 
l'. 
SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB 
MARCH 23, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Sections 21 (h) & (J.) and 50--
C Eviction petition by landlord-Pre111ises required for his own use and for 
de111olition and reconstruction for residential use-Trial Court dis111issing the 
eviction petition-High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, reversed the 
findings of the trial court-Correctness of-Held, High Court had the power 
to re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to its own findings under 
D the Act-On facts and evidence, the need of the landlord being bona fide and 
the building required demolition and reconstruction, High Court rightly 
rewrsed the findings r!f' the triul court. 
Respondent-landlord filed rent control petitions before trial court 
for eviction of the appellant-tenants from his premises, under section 21(h) 
E and (J.) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for his own occupation 
:rnd for demolition and reconstruction of a residential house. The trial 
court dismissed the petitions holding that the respondent did not require 
the premises for demolition and reconstruction as the respondent failed 
to prove that the premises was in a dilapidated condition. High Court 
F allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the appellant-tenants 
to vacate and deliver the premises to the respondent. 
In appeal to the Court, the appellant contended that the High Court 
had no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and evaluate the evidence on record 
affirmed by the trial court; that the High Court failed to .render a correct 
G finding on the comparative hardship; that the respondent did not prove 
his bona fide requirement of the premises; and that the premises is not in 
a dilapidated condition which required demolition. 
The respondent contended that the High Court had jurisdiction to 
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court under section 
fI 
412 
I 
;k 
~ 
.. 
) 
P.S. PAREED KA.KA v. SHAfEE AHMED SA.HEB 
413 
50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act; and that the present A 
accommodation is situated in an unhygienic area facing a drain emitting 
bad stench and hence he needed the premises for his residential 
accommodation; and that the premises was dilapidated requiring 
demolition and construction. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The trial Court has miserably failed to consider whether 
the need put forth by respondent-landlord is bona fide, reasonable or not. 
B 
The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion 
that the need of the respondent is bona fide and the building required C 
demolition and reconstruction. The evidence tendered consistently shows 
that all the witnesses have clearly admitted that the accommodation, where 
the respondent landlord is residing, faces a drain and that the area is 
' unhygienic and he does not want to stay near a drain. The tenants have 
admitted the same in their evidence. It cannot be said that the decision of 
the landlord to leave the premises and to shift to a premises away from D 
the drain is unreasonable or unjust. The evidence let in clearly shows that 
there is sufficient cause for the landlord to shift his residence to a new 
premises and reside there. In fact, the reasonableness can also be decided 
from the offer made by the landlord that if all the tenants vacate the 
premises by consent the landlord is willing to even demolish and construct 
shops and residential portions for the tenants in the Nala road property E 
and give them on rent. 1419-A-Df 
1.2. The mere fact that the landlord had filed an eviction petition 
against the earlier tenant of the Nala road property is not a ground to 
hold that the landlord should continue to live in the said property F 
undergoing hardship and inconvenience. 1419-EI 
1.3. It is in evidence that the premises is very old and the building 
therein is dilapidated and portions of the building have also collapsed. It 
is also in evidence that the rear outhouse building has already collapsed. 
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said need is not bona G 
fide or unreasonable. It is not for the tenants to suggest that there is no 
need to demolish the existing building and construct the new building. The 
landlord is entitled to make use of his property for any reasonable purpose. 
If the landlord chooses to use it for residential purpose, the tenants 

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