SAVITRI SAHAY versus SACHIDANAND PRASAD

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 31-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
SA VlTRl SAHA Y 
A 
v. 
SACHIDANAND PRASAD 
OCTOBER 3 I, 2002 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1982: 
c 
Sections l l(lj(c)-Eviction suit on ground of bona fide requirement-
Tenant taking plea that other flats falling vacant after the filing of suit which 
owner letting out at higher rent-Trial Court accepting the reasons ofbonafide 
requirement and passing eviction decree-High Court setting aside the decree 
since owner not occupying other flats falling vacant-Justification of- Held, D 
order of High Court not justified since Explanation to Section 11 (I }(c) permits 
landlord to ignore other pre1nises and prefer a particular premise. 
Section 14(8)-Revision power-Scope of-Discussed. 
Appellant is the owner of premises where respondent was a tenant E 
in one of the flats. Appellant filed eviction suit against respondent-tenant 
on the ground of bona fide requirement. Respondent contended that 
appellant wanted to evict the respondent and then let out the flat at higher 
rent. It was also contended that there were other flats in the building which 
became vacant after filing of the suit and appellant had let out those flats 
at higher rent. Appellant contended that she wanted the said flat as it was F 
on the ground floor, contiguous to the ancestral building where she was 
presently residing and also that the said flat faced a open piece of land 
which belonged to her husband. It was also contended that being an old 
lady she could not climb to the first floor where other flats were located 
while the other ground floor flat faced a crowded road and was noisy. Trial G 
Court accepted the reasons and passed decree for eviction. Respondent-
tenant filed a revision. High Court set aside the decree and dismissed the 
eviction suit as the appellant did not occupy other flats which became 
available in the same-building. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that under Section 14(8) of the Act High Court H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A hnd revisional powers which were limited to satisfying itself that the order 
passed by trial court was in accordance with law, thus High Court erred 
in appreciating the entire evidence and arriving at a different conclusion. 
B 
Respondent contended that appellant was merely evicting him in 
order to let out the premises at higher rent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Explanation II to Section ll(l)(c) of the Bihar Buildings 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1982 permits the landlord to ignore other 
premises and to prefer a particular premise. In the instant case, appellant 
C indicated a preference for the flat occupied by respondent. She gave 
reasons as to why she preferred this flat. Trial Court accepted these 
reasons. High Court merely set aside the decree on the ground that 
appellant had chosen not to occupy the three other flats which became 
available in the same building. [7-B-E] 
D 
1.2. Appellant having made a preference cannot be forced to occupy 
. other premises which may become available. Further the appellant was 
not required to keep those premises vacant because her eviction suit was 
pending, nor was there any duty cast on appellant, under any provision 
of law, to offer those other premises to respon<l:ent. If respondent had so 
E desired, he could have offered to vacate the flat preferred by landlady and 
move into one of those other premises. If appellant had refused to accept 
such an offer, it possibly could have been said that the landlady was merely 
seeking to get vacant possession in order to get higher rents. In that case 
it could have been inferred that the need of the appellant was not genuine 
and/or in good faith. No such case has been made out and in view of the 
F specific provision in the Act the r~asoning of High Court cannot be 
sustained. In case appellant does not shift into the said premises, it will 
be open to respondent to apply under Section 17 of the Act, for rt>storation 
of possession. and for compensation. [7-E, F, H; 8-AI 
G 
2. High Cour! did not re-appreciate evidence to arrive at a different 
conclusion. It merely set out the admitted facts and/or facts proved during 
the course of trial. On the admitted or proved facts High Court felt that 
the conclusion arrived at by trial court was unreasonable and perv.erse. 
Therefore, High Court recorded its own finding. This the High Court was 
entitled to do once

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