VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI versus HAJI ISMAIL

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 23-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA

Judgment (excerpt)

VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI 
v. 
HAJllSMAIL 
MARCH 23, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVRAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Andhra Pradesh Building ( uase, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 
I•: 
• 
S. JO-Eviction suit filed on grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent 
and bona fide requirement-Rent Controller orrkred eviction on both the 
grounds-Appellate Authority confined orrhr only on the ground of bonafide 
requirement-High Court reversed orrhrof eviction considering certain subse-
quent developments-On appeal Held : All subsequent developments are not 
necessarily relevant for adjudication and only those which can tum the balance 
in the case should be considered-Controversy should be decided wiih refer-
ence to the pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on recon:t-High 
Court, while rushing to the conclusion, wrongly interfered with the orrhr of 
eviction. 
Section 22-Revisional power of High Court-Expressions "legality", 
"regularity" or "propriety" are wider than mere correction of jurisdictional 
error-Revisional power, however, cannot be exercised to upset concurrent 
findings of fact recorrkd-lnteiference allowed only when it is shown that such 
findings suffer from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or 
irrelevant materials or are perverse. 
Appellant landlady filed an eviction suit against the respondent un-
der Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) 
Control Act, 1960 on the grounds of non-payment or arrears or rent and 
that there was a bona fule requirement to settle with her children who were · 
to complete their higher education. Rent Controller ordered eviction on 
both the grounds. However, the Appellate Authority confirmed the same 
only on the ground of bona fide requirement. High Court reversed the 
order considering certain subsequent developments. Hence this appeal. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant contended that the High Court could not disturb the con-
current findings or fact under the limited scope of Section 22 or the Act; 
H 
691 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and that the subsequent development averred by the respondent. tenant in 
the High Court were not supported by any material on record. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. When litigation lingers on for years certain factual devel-
opments are bound to take place, which are not necessarily relevant for 
adjudication. In proceedings for eviction of the tenant on the ground of 
personal requirement sometimes subsequent developments may be rel· 
evant and are looked into for enabling the authorities to make a fair and 
proper adjudication of the controversy. While taking note of subsequent 
developments they should keep in mind whether such material is relevant 
and can turn the balance in the case. The controversy should be decided 
with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on 
record. In the present case, the husband of the landlady stated in his 
deposition that their daughter was living with her husband and their son 
was studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam, which was not a 
subsequent development and was considered by the Rent Controller and 
the Appellate Authority. (696-C-FJ 
2. The language of the Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 suggests, the revisional power 
vested in the High Court is to be used for the purpose of satisfying itself as 
to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and if 
satisfied that the order/orders suffer any such vice i! may pass such order 
in reference to the proceeding as it thinks Cit. The expressions 'legality' 
'regularity' or 'propriety' are undoubtedly wider than mere correction of 
jurisdictional error. But even such revisional power cannot be exercised to 
upset the concurreni findings of fact recorded by the Forums below merely 
on ihe ground that it is inclined to take a different view on the materials on 
record. The concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered with in 
revision, as for such interference, it has to be shown that the findings 
recorded by the Forums below suffer from any inherent defect or are 
based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no 
reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials. [ 697-B-D) 
3. The High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of the Fo-
rums below merely taking note of th

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