RAM DASS versus ISHWAR CHANDER AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 09-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM DASS 
v. 
ISHWAR CHANDER AND OTHERS 
MAY 9, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ., S. NATARAJAN AND 
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
Constitutioi:i of India, 1950-Article 136---Bonafide need of land· 
lord of accommodation-Eviction of tenant-All conclusions drawn 
from,primary facts-Not necessarily questions of law-Often are pure 
questions of fact-Bonafide requirement is one such. 
East Punjab Rent Restrictions Act, 1949: Section 15~ Tenant-
Eviction of-On ground of bonafide need of landlord-Righ Court-
Jurisdiction of-To interfere in revision-Court call take cautious 
cognizance of subsequent events to mould relief 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant and the respondents were tenants or separate por-
tions of the premises which wa• later sold by the landlord to the respon-
dents, who were four brothers. The respondents filed a petition for 
eviction or the appellant on the ground of bonafide requirement. They' 
contended that they were in all 10 brothers, who; alongwith their 
families, were living together with their father, and the accommodation 
E 
in their occupation was insufficient for their needs. 
The Rent Controller upheld the claim of the respondents. The 
Appellate Authority (District Judge), however, allowed the appellant's 
appeal. The High Court, in revision under section 15(5), reversed the 
appellate judgment and restored that pf the Court of first Instance. 
F 
Before this Court the appellant contended: 
(1) That the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction 
was precluded from re-opening the rmdings of fact recorded by the 
appellate authority; and (2) that the findings of the High Court on 
G 
reappraisal of evidence were wholly erroneous. 
Dismissing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (I) It was, no doubt, true that the question whether the 
requirement of the landlord was bonafide or not was essentially one or 
H 
239 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
fact, notwithstanding the circumstance thmt a finding of fact in that 
behalf was a secondary and inferential fact drawn from other primary 
or perceptive ones. All conclusions drawn from primary facts were not 
necessarily, questions of law. They could be, and quite often were, pure 
questions of fact. The question as to honafide requirement was one 
such. !242G-H] 
B 
(2) The landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might 
otherwise be, had inevitably a subjective element in it, and that 
"desire" to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective 
} 
element of a "need". [243C] 
''\ 
c 
(3) Statute had been enacted to afford protection to tenants from 
eviction. In considering the reasonable requirement of the landlord the 
court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the 
protection afforded by law to the tenant was not rendered merely 
illusory or whittled down. [243A, C-D] 
D 
( 4) Subject to the well-known limitations of all revisional jurisdic-
tions, the scope of revisional power essentially turned on the language of 
the statute investing the revisional jurisdiction. [243E] 
(5) Section 15(5) of the Act enabled the High Court to satisfy itself 
as to the "legality and propriety" or the order under revision, 
E 
which was quite obviously, a much wider jurisdiction in the exercise 
of which, an appropriate case, the High Court could reappraise the 
evidence if the finding of the appellate court was found to be infirm in 
law. (243G; 244F] 
(6) Courts could take a 'cautious-cognizance' of the subsequent-
F 
events in order to mould the relief. [24SF -G l 
Mattu/a/ v. Radhe Lal, [1975) 1SCR127; Phiroze Bamanji Desai 
v. Chandrakant M. Patel, [1974) 3 SCR 267; Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman 
Hemraj, AIR 1938 Born. 223; Hari Shankar v. Girdhari Lal Chow-
dhury, -(AIR 1963 SC 698); Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakata v. Vit-
G 
halrao Marutirao, AIR 1975 SC 1111 and M/s Ranalakshmi Dyeing & 
Others v. Rangaswamy, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2969 
of 1984. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1984 of the Punjab 
\1
RAM DASS v. ISHWAR CHANDER [VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 
241 
and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1934 of 1982. 
A 
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Appellant. 
V.C. Mahajan and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
B 
VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special Leave, by the 
tenant arises out of the proceedings for eviction instituted against him 
under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 and is preferred 
ag

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