LexSRINIVASIAH versus SRI BALAJI KRISHNA HARDWARE STORES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SRINIV ASIAH A v. SRI BALAJI KRISHNA 1-:!ARDWARE STORES NOVEMBER 20, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 137 Review-Supreme Court-Power to review its own judgment- Landlord's petition for eviction-Eviction order by Rent Controller-Order C upheld by Appellate Authority and High Court-Tenant's appeal allowed by Supreme Court-Review petition by landlord-Contrary findings of courts below not brought to notice of this Court while allowing tenant's appeal- Therefore held there was ample justification for interference in review jurisdiction. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground that the shop in occupation of the tenant was bona fide required for the purpose of his son's°'business. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court. Civil appeal preferred D by the tenant was allowed by this Court on the ground that behind the shop E occupied by the tenant there was another vacant shop and the landlord had not established that it was not suitable for his son's business. While allowing the tenant's appeal* this Court did not have the benefit of the findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority as the judgments of these authorities were not filed in the paper book. This Court assumed that alternative accommodation was a shop while it was of the nature of a godown. The landlord filed a review petition before this Court. From the judgments- of the Rent Controller and Appellate authority-filed with the review petition- it was evident that back side portion of the shop could be utilised only as a godown and the fact of usage of godown has been admitted by the tenant in his evidence. Allowing landlord's review petition, this Cqurt F G HELD : 1. There is ample justification for interference in review jurisdiction. The judgment* rendered by this Court proceeded on the assumption that the available accommodation was in the nature of shop. This H 83 84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A assumption was not correct. From the findings of Courts below it is clear that the other premises which was available was not suitable for being used as a shop, it being in the nature of a godown. This finding was not brought to notice of this Court. Accordingly the finding of the Courts below is accepted. The Judgment in the Civil Appeal* is set aside and the judgment B of the High Court is restored. [86-D; 86-C; 86-E) *Sree Balaji Krishna Hardware Store v. Srinivasiah, [1998) 2 SCC 708, reversed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 638 of 1998. C From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.97 of the Madras High Court D in C.R.P. No. 1857of1992. A.T.M. Sampath and Balaji (R. Satish) (NP) for the Petitioner/ Appellant. Shanti Narayanan, Ms. Asha G. Nair and Ram Kumar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. This is an application for review of our judgment in Sree Bala)i Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasiah, [1998] 2 E sec 708 (Civil Appeal No. 638of1998) dated 6.2.1998. By that judgment, the Civil Appeal preferred by the tenant was allowed and the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 30.8.97 was set aside and the eviction petition filed by the review petitioner (Landlord) was dismissed. We may state that eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for the business of his sons and eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller F by his judgment dated 25.1.1990 in R.C.O.P. No. 2564 of 1986. The said judgment was confirmed by the appellate authority in RCA No. 229 of 1990 on 18.3.1992 and by the High Court in CRP No. 1875of1992 on 30.8.1997. These judgments held that the landlord bona fide needed the shop occupied by the tenant for the purpose of his son's business. In the Civil Appeal, these G judgments were set aside by this Court on the short ground that behind the shop occupied by the tenant who was sought to be evicted, there was a shop-room which had fallen vacant and the landlord had not established that it was not suitable for his son's business. This Court observed that the said shop could be reached from the front-side through the passage lying between · the tenant's shop on the right side and the shop on the left side occupied H by Srinivas Glass Agencies. SRINIVASIAH v. SRI BALAJI KRISHNA HARD. ST. [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.J 85 Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.