SRI KEMPAIAH versus LINGAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 31-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI KEMP AlAH. 
v. 
LINGAIAH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2001 
.[RP. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Kamataka Rent ControlAct, .1961 : 
C 
Sections 21 ( 1 )(h) and 29( 4 )___:Eviction petition-On ground Qf bonafid~ : · 
requirement-No evidence led to prove the same-G~und of default in p~y-
'.'. ~:· 
•· 
.~· 
ment of rent-Failure to show rate of rent7'"Held, the grounds of eviction not 
· t 
D 
E 
proved. 
Section.50-'--Revisional power of High Court-Held, are wider than the 
powers conferred under ;ection 115 CPC-Civil Procedu1-e Code, 1908~ 
&~oolli 
· 
Words and Phrases: 'Require'-Meaning of-In the cont~xt of Section 
21( l)(h) o.f Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961. 
Appellant-landlord filed evictiOn petition on the grm~nd of bonafide . 
requirement and on the ground of arrears of payment of rent. During 
trial, the appellant himself did not appear as a witness and tried.to prove 
the averments in the petition by production of PW 1, his son, as a witness. 
F 
Rent controller allowed the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement 
but with regard to default in, payment of rent, it observed that in the 
absence of any material regarding rate of rent self-testimony of PW 1 
cannot be accepted. 
G 
High Court allowed the revision petition holding that there was no 
bonafide requirement and the case was not a case where partial eviction 
could have been ordered; and that the appellant was not able to show as to 
what actual amount each terient was liable to.pay when he issued notice. 
In appeal, this Court directed the respondents to pay arrears of rent. 
H 
Respondents.paid the r~ilt as per their own calculatfon •. 
644 
·-
. . 
SRI KEMPAIAH v. LINGAIAH 
645 
The appellant contended that findings of fact arrived at by'the trial 
A· 
court could not be disturbed by the Higli Court in exercise of its revisional 
jurisdiction; and that the appellant landlord required the entire premises 
. bonajide; and that since the respondents had failed to pay full arrears as 
pel," direction of this Court, they may be evicted in terms of Section 29(4) of I 
the Karnataka.Rent Control Act, 1961. 
B 
. 
. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
.. \ 
HELD : 1. Revisional powe~ of the High Court, undedhe Karnataka 
Rent Control Act, 1961 are wider than the powers conferreCI upon it under 
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is not pre-
C 
eluded to appreciate the evidence for arriving at the conclusion regarding 
the alleged reasonable bonafide requirement. There is no fault in the judg-
ment of the High Court in so far as the scope of its powers under Section 50 
of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 is concerned. [647-E-Fl 
. Bhoolchand & Anr: v. Kay Pee Cee Investments & Anr:, [1991} 1 SCC 
343, relied on. 
2. It may have been a wish 01:" desire of the appellant to occupy the 
leased premises but he failed to prove the reasonable bonafide requirement 
D 
as contemplated under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. The word "require" 
E 
used in clause (h) of sub-clause (1) of Section 21 of the Act implies some-
thing more than a mere wish or impulse or desire on the part of the 
landlord. Although the element of need is present in both the cases, the real · 
distinction between "desire" and "require" lies in the insistence of the need • 
. There is an element of ''must have" in the case of"require" which is not 
present in the case of mere "desfre". The ground mentioned in clause (h) 
of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act emphasizes the genuineness of 
the requirement of the landlord. The terms "reasonable and bonafide 
requirement'' are complementary and supplementary to each other in the 
context. (648-C-E} 
Dattatraya Laxman KamMe v. Abdul RasulMoulali Kotkunde & Am:, 
(1999) 4 sec 1, referred to . 
F 
G 
3.1. The trial court, rightly held that.''in the absence of any material 
regarding the.rate of rent, the selHestimony of PW 1 cannot be accepted". 
[647-H} 
H 
A 
B 
c 
.; 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] ~P. 4 S.C.R. 
3.2. The Memo of Calculations filed by the appellant himself s~ows 
that the respondents had made the payment of the rent as per their own 
calculations and even according to the appellant a meagre amount is stated 
to have not been paid. Without determining the quantum of rent, particu-
larly when the appellant himself was not sure about the monthly rate of rent, 
the direction of the court stands substantially complied with not requiring 
the invoking of powers under 

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