RAI CHAND JAIN versus MISS CHANDRA KANTA KHOSLA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 15-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
l 
RAI CHAND JAIN 
v. 
MISS CHANDRA KANTA KHOSLA 
NOVEMBER 15, 1990 
[B.C. RAY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949-Sections I I and 
15-High Court-Interference with findings of fact-Whether per-. 
missible. 
A 
B 
Respondent, land-lady leased out the demised premises to the 
appellant on the basis of a rent note dated 19.5.1978 wherein it was 
C 
stipulated that the demised premises were to be used for residential 
purpose and that the tenant-appellant shall not sublet the premises or 
any part thereof. The respondent ftled an application for eviction of the 
appellant-tenant on the ground that the tenant had not paid the reut; 
that he has changed the user of the premises by setting up a printing 
D 
press "Navneet Prakashan' there and 'further that she required the 
premises for her bona fide use. The appellant controverted the allega-
tions. The trial court allowed the application holding that the demised 
premises were used for the purpose other than that for which it was let 
out and the premises were let out to the appellant and not to 'Navneet 
Prakashan'. However, on the question of land-lady's requirement for 
E 
bona fide use, the trial court held against her. 
On appeal by the tenant-appellant, the Appellate Authority 
reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the premises were 
let out for running printing press and thus there was no change of user. 
Against the judgment of the appellate authority, the respondent-
F 
landlady filed a revision in the High Court. The High Court reversed 
the order passed by the appellate authority. It held that the demised 
premises was let ont to the appellant and not to the Navn,eet Prakashan 
and the purpose of tenancy is to use the demised premises as residence 
and since the appellant has used the premises for a purpose other than 
that for which it was let out to him, he was liable to be evicted. It 
G 
further held that the respondent required the premises for bona fide 
nse. Hence this appeal by the tenant. 
Before this Coor! it is inter alia contended that the High Court in 
its revisional jurisdiction, is not competent to interfere .with the rmdings 
of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority even if the findings are 
H 
91 
A 
B 
c 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
erroneous nor it can substitute its views for the view expressed by the 
appellate authority even if two views are possible unless the findings are 
perverse. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: The High Court in exercising its power under Section 
15(5) is within its jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact when the 
same were improper and also illegal. [lOOB] 
The tenant in the instant case, took the lease in his own name and 
the rent note was signed by him. It is also evident that he is the sole 
proprietory of M/s. Navneet Prakashan. In these circumstances it can-
not but be held that the lease of the demised premises was given to the 
tenant appellant for his residence. [lOlD-t<:J 
Faqir Chand v. R.R. Bhanot, [1973] 3 SCR 454; Shalimar Tar 
Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., [1988] 1 SCR 1023; Du/i 
4 
D 
Chand (dead) by L.rs. v. Jagmender Dass, [1990] 1 SCC 169; Hari 
Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, AIR 1986 (Pb. and Haryana) 119; Ram Dass v. 
Ishwar Chander and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 131; Vinod Kumar Arora v. 
Smt. Surjit Kaur, [1987] 3 SCR 552; M/s. New Garage Ltd. v. Khush-
want Singh andAnr., [1951] PLR 136; Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and 
Ors., [1986] SCC (Suppl.) 181; Ved Parkash v. Darshan Lal Jain, 
E 
[ 1986] 2 SCR 90, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5346 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.1990 of the Punjab and 
F 
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1238 of 1989. 
G 
P.C. Jain and Ms. Indu Goswamy for the Appellant. 
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, Arvind Minocha and Nand Kishore 
Khosla for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, J. Special leave granted. Arguments heard. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and 
.._ 
H order passed by the High Court of Pun jab and Haryana at Chandigarh 
I 
I 
I ' •• 
R.C. JAIN v. C.K. KHOSLA (RAY, J.] 
93 
in Civil Revision No. 1238 of 1989 reversing the Order of the Appel-
late Authority, Chandigarh, dated December 24, 1988 in Rent Appeal 
No. 29 of 1987, reversing the Order of the Rent Controller, Chandi-
garh dated 16th February, 1987 in Case No. 124 of 1985. 
A 
The matrix of the case in s

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