RAM DASS versus DAVINDER

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 24-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM DASS 
V. 
DAVINDER 
MARCH 24, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
1 • 
c 
Ha1yana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction} Act, 1973, Ss. I 3(2}(v) 
and 15(6): 
Suit for eviction on ground that tenant ceasing to occupy the suit premises 
without reasonable cause-Decreed by Rent Control/er-Affirmed by Appellate 
Authority-Reversed by High Court in revision,--On appeal, Held: No fault 
could be found in the manner of dealing and marshalling of eyidence by the 
D Rent Controller and its re-evaluation by the Appellate Authority-Protection 
to tenant available so long as tenant occupies the premises in terms of tenancy 
agreement-Landlord could evict a tenant on breach of conditions of tenancy 
agreement-Burden of proof lies on landlord-When Landlord discharged his 
burden by showing breach of condition by the tenant, ground for eviction 
E made out-Onus shifts on tenant to rebut the same by showing reasonable 
cause-Landlord has made out a case for eviction by establishing that the 
tenant ceased to occupy the suit premises for quite a iong period but tenant 
failed in discharging his onus-Thus, the Rent Controller rightly arrived at 
the findings- High Court by re-appreciating evidence misread the evidence 
to some extent and reversed the well considered findings of the Courts below--
F Hence, judgment of the High Court set aside and that of the Rent Controller 
restored. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court: 
G 
Held: Under its revisional jurisdiction it is not open to High Court to 
re-appreciate. evidence. 
Words and Phrases: 'possession' and 'occupy '-Meaning of 
' 
• '-
Appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-
H 
518 
RAM DASS v. DAVlNDER 
519 
tenant on the ground available under Sectfon 13(2)(v) of the Haryana A 
Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. The suit was decreed by the 
Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, on 
revision, High Court reversed the findings of the Courts below and 
dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I.I. No fault can be found with the manner in which the 
evidence has been dealt with and marshalled by the Rent Controller. The 
Appellate Authority has made an independent evaluation of the evidence 
and confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. The High Court has, C 
while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, entered into re-appreciation of 
evidence not open to it; more so, keeping in view the manner in which the 
exercise has been undertaken by it. There was to some extent misreading 
of the evidence by the High Court. It has proceeded on erroneous 
assumptions to reverse the findings of facts concurrently arrived at by the 
two authorities below and such exercise by the High Court as also the D 
conclusions drawn therefrom cannot be countenanced in as much as they 
are vitiated. High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the 
well considered findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below. 
[522-C-D; 523-A-B[ 
1.2. The terms "possession" and "occupy" are in common parlance E 
used interchangeably. However, in law, possession over a property may 
amount to holding it as owner but to occupy is to keep possession of it by 
being present in it. [523-C[ 
1.3. The Act protects the tenants from eviction and enacts specifically 
the grounds on the availability whereof the tenant may be directed to be F 
evicted. It is for the landlord to make out a ground for eviction. The burden 
of prooflies on him. However, the onus keeps on shifting. Once the landlord 
has been able to show that the tenancy premises were not being used for 
the purpose for which they were let out and the tenant has discontinued such 
activities in the tenancy premises as would have required the tenant's G 
actually being in the premises, the ground for eviction is made out. The 
availability of a reasonable cause for ceasing to occupy the premises would 
obviously be within the knowledge and, at times, within the exclusive 
knowledge of tenant. Once the premises have been shown by evidence to 
be not in occupation of the tenant, the pleading of the landlord that such 
H 
non-user is without reasonable cause, has the effect of putting the tenant 
520 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A on notice to plead and prove the availability ofreasonable cause for ce·asing 
to occupy the tenancy premises. [523-F-G-H[ 
1.4. In

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