SHIV SARUP GUPTA versus DR. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1260 · Decided: 30-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIV SARUP GUP.TA 
v. 
DR. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA 
B 
, · AUGUST 30, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14 (1) (e)-Bonafide 
requirement-Landlord requiring premises for the professional needs of his 
C son and himself, who are doctors and because of growing family-Rent 
<;ontroller di~missed application as wife and mother-in-law of landlord died 
and deceased wife of landlord owned another house in same city-High 
Court held, house owned by deceased wife already mutated in favour of four 
sons as per· .her will so alternative accommodation not available with 
D landlord-On appeal held, High Court did not cummit jurisdictional error 
in upholding claim for eviction-Bonafide requirement of landlord 
substantiated-High Court not justified in considering contents of the will 
find other documents without formally admitting them in evidence, and giving 
the parties opportunity to prove and disprove them. 
E 
Section 25-B (8)-Scope-Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Not 
F 
as limited as under Section 115 C.P.C. nor as wide as that of an appellate 
Court-,-High Court can.not appreciate or reappreciate evidence merely 
.-
because it takes a different view of the facts-High Court shall test the order 
on the touch stone of "whether it is according to law"-For this limited 
purpose may reappreciate evidence. 
Bonafide requirement-Alternate accommodation available to 
landlord-Choice of accommodation available-Court shall apply objective 
standards to as-certain need for premises or additional premises-Court 
would not impose own wisdom as regards such choice. 
G 
. Words and Phrases-"bona fide or genuine need", "genuinely requires", 
"requires bonajide"-Meaning of in context of Section 14 (J)(e)-Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1953. 
Appellant is the tenant occupying first floor and Barsati in the suit 
premises. Respondent landlord is a doctor by profession occupying the ground 
If 
1260 
S.S. GUPTA v. DR. MC. GUPTA 
1261 
•• ~ 4 
floor along with his family. The respondent landlord filed a suit for evictio.n A 
before the Additional Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide requirement 
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The averments in the suit were that 
. the accommodations on the ground floor was insufficient to meet the needs 
of his family and that his son, who was staying along with him, was also a 
doctor and patients often visited their residence when the clinic was closed. :ij 
The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the wife 
and mother-in-law of the respondent had died and therefore his need was no 
more pressing and also that his deceased wife owned another house in the 
same city. 
The respondent preferred revision before the High Court contending C 
that the house owned by his deceased wife had already been mutated in favour 
of their four sons as per her will and therefore, the said alter-native 
accommodation was not available to the respondent The High Court considered 
some relevant documents and the will (which were placed before the High 
Court along with an applications for admitting additional evidence) and 
ordered eviction of the appellant. 
, D 
Aggrieved the appellant appealed to this Court contendin·g that the 
High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction has committed a jurisdictional 
error in reversing the finding of facts recorded by the Rent Controller and 
that a serious jurisdictional irregularity had been committed by the High 
Court by taking into consideration the document filed by the landlord for the E 
first time before it without formally admitting the same in evidence and 
without affording the tenant an opportunity of rebutting them. 
The respondent contended that the documents placed before the High 
Court merely intended to bring to notice a subsequent event and they were 
of undoubted veracity; that th.e ultimate finding arrived at by the High Court F 
would not be dislodged even if the said documents were not considered; and 
that the finding arrived was the only finding that could have been reasonably 
arrived at from the material available on record. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was not justified in taking into consideration 
the contents of the will without formally admitting the same in evidence and 
affording the parties opportunity of adducing evidence in proof and dis-proof 
there of. [1274-E] 
G 
1.2. The High Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in H 
1262 

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