SARLA AHUJA versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 27-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARLA AHUJA 
v. 
UNITED !NOIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 
OCTOBER 27, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: 
Section 14(1)-Proviso-Clause (e)-Scope of-Eviction-Bona fide 
C requirement-Alternative accommodation available to landlord-It is not 
enough that such accommodation is in a far different State-It must be 
available in same city or town or within reasonable proximity if outside the 
limits of city. 
Section 258(8)-Proviso-Revision-Power of High Court to interfere-
D High Court should examine whether any illegality has been committed by 
Rent Controller-High Court should not come to a different finding unless 
the finding was unreasonable---Eviction order passed by Rent Controller 
taking into account relevant factors-High court upsetting the finding of 
Rent Con/roller in revision jurisdiction-Held, High Court overstepped the 
E limit of its power as a Revisional Court-Appellate and Revisional 
jurisdiclion-Distinction in scope of 
The appellant-landlady has been staying at Calcutta on the third floor 
of a flat with her son and his family. She was doing business, along with her 
son, in Patents and Trade Marks. In connection with the said business they 
F have to be in Delhi quite often. In respect of her tenanted premises at Delhi, 
she filed an eviction suit under section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958. Reasons which persuaded her to seek recovery of tenanted premises 
were: (1) in the building where she resides at Calcutta her son and daughter-
in-law were also living with their children; (2) she and her son have to go 
G Ill Delhi quite often and stay there for days in connection with their business; 
(3) her daughter lives in NOIDA which is on the outskirts of Delhi and it 
would be convenient for that daughter to stay with the mother frequently; 
landlady was getting old and developed orthopaedic problems and hence she 
felt that living in the ground floor was more advisable; and (5) the flat in 
which she lives at Calcutta was on the third floor whereas the tenanted 
H 
390 
,_
SARLA AHUJA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
391 
premises were on the ground floor. 
A 
After taking into account the aforesaid broad aspects the Rent 
Controller passed an eviction order holding that she bona fide requires the 
tenanted premises for her occupation and she has no other suitable residential 
accommodation at Delhi. A single judge of High Court non-suited her by B 
reversing the order of Rent Controller. In exercise of its revision power 
under proviso to section 25B(8), the High Court reassessed and re-appraised 
the evidence afresh to reach a different finding as if it was exercising 
appellate jurisdiction. It held that since the landlady has possession of 
another flat at Calcutta she was disentitled to seek recovery of possession 
of the tenanted premises situated at Delhi. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant-
landlady that the High Court has committed jurisdictional transgression 
while exercising revisional jurisdiction by interfering with the finding of 
fact made by the Rent Controller. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The High Court has over-stepped the limit of its power as 
a revisional court. The order impugned, on that score, is hence vitiated by 
c 
D 
jurisdictional deficiency. [397-A) 
E 
2. In legal parlance distinction between appellate and revisional 
jurisdiction is well understood. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction is wide 
enough to afford a re-hearing of the whole case for enabling the appellate 
forum to arrive at fresh conclusions untrammelled by the conclusions reached 
in the order challenged before it. Of course, the statute which provides F 
appeal provision can circumscribe or limit the width of such appellate powers. 
Revisional power, on the contrary, is ordinarily a power of supervision 
keeping subordinate tribunals within the bounds of law. Expansion or 
constriction of such revision power would depend upon how the statute has 
couched such power therein. In some legislation revisional jurisdiction is G 
meant for satisfying itself as to the regularity, legality or propriety of 
proceedings or decisions of the subordinate court. [395-C-E) 
3. Although the word "revision" is not employed in the proviso to 
Section 258(8) of the Act it is evident from the language used therein that 
the power conferred is revisional power. The proviso indicates that power of H 
392 
SUPREME COU

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