SHAKEELUR RAHMAN versus SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 29-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
SHAKEELUR RAHMAN 
A 
v. 
SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI 
NOVEMBER 29, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 
14(/)(b)-Eviction on the ground o/bonafide requirement for demolition and C 
reconstruction of building for better financial returns-Eviction denied by 
Courts below as age and condition of building not established-In revision 
High Court allowed eviction taking the view that establishing age and condition 
of building not required by law-On appeal interference of High Court with 
concurrent finding of facts in its revisional jurisdiction questioned-Held, D 
though interference of High Court is illegal, but in the facts of the case finding 
of High Court is sustainable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115. 
Respondent-landlord filed suit for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for bonafide 
requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the building in question E 
for better financial returns, Rent Controller and Appellate Authority 
denied eviction on the ground that in order to seek eviction under the 
provision it was mandatory to establish need for immediate demolition and 
reconstruction of the building, 
In revision, High Court, interfering with the concurrent finding of F 
facts of the courts below held that landlord had bonafide requirement for 
seeking eviction; that law did not require the landlord to establish 
immediate need for demolition and reconstruction of the building; and that 
in the instant case despite absence of pleadings regarding age and condition 
of the building, material on record established that the building was old 
and required demolition, 
G 
In appeal to this Court appellant-tenant contended that intereference 
of High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, with the concurrent 
finding of facts was illegal; and that there has been no provision for re-
induction of the tenant after reconstruction, 
391 
H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS '[2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-landlord contended that for seeking eviction under 
B 
Section 14(l)(b) of the Act, llgP and condition of the building is not the 
only criterion, but new structure for better financial returns also 
constitutes a honajide requirement by the landlord. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is correct that interference of High Court with 
concurrent finding of the lower authorities in regard to the age of building 
is illegal, but it does not alter the result. Both Rent Controller and 
Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis as if age and condition of the 
C building are the sine qua non for application of Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil 
Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. But, though age and 
condition of the building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to 
test bonajides of the landlord, they are not determinative of the issue. 
Though High Court's approach in interfering with the concurrent finding 
of fact is not approved, yet it is not necessary or just to interfere with the 
D impugned order, as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by 
the lower authorities, a finding of bona fide requirement of the landlord 
has been recorded by the High Court which is now affirmed by this Court. 
The finding is sufficient to sustain the order under challenge. 
[396-H; 397-B, Cl 
E 
Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (19°96) 6 SCC 475, 
F 
followed. 
P. 'Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) limited, 
(1991) I sec 301 and KM. Abdul Razzak v. Damodharan, [20001 5 Sec 
369, referred to. 
2. The plea that there has been no provision for re-induction of the 
tenant after reconstruction is without any substance. A rational approach 
would be •to hold that age and condition of the building are the only 
relevant factors, keeping in view the beneficial context of the statute. It is 
G not practicable and would be anomalous to expect a landlord to take back 
a tenant after a long lapse of time during which time the tenant must 
necessarily have found some suitable accommodation elsewhere. 
(397-C-E] 
Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475, 
H followed. 
-. 
SHAKEELUR RAHMAN r. SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI [ARIJIT PASA VAT, J.] 
393 
Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Tami/nadu and Ors., 119871 4 A 
SCC 238 and R. V.£. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venketesha Gupta and O

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