VANEET JAIN versus JAGJIT SINGH

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 02-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.. 
VANEETJAIN 
v. 
JAGJIT SINGH 
MAY2, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: 
Ss. 15(6) and 13-,-Revision-Power of High Court-Shop-Tenant-
Application by landlord for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide need-
Landlord, an unemployed commerce graduate!__Wanted to start his own busi-
ness in the shop-Rent Controller and appellate authority allowing the appli-
cation holding the need of landlord to be bonafide-High Court dismissing 
application of landlord on the ground that his need was not bonafide as he was 
enrolled in employment exchange-Held, High Court did not find that the 
conclusion reached by two authorities below was unreasonable-In the circum-
stances, it is, not permissible for High Court to reassess or re-appraise the 
e_vidence to arrive at a finding contrary to finding off act Tf!corded by the two 
authorities below-On request of tenant and there being no objection on behalf 
of landlord, tenant allowed one year's time to vacate premises. 
Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, [1999] 6 SCC 222 and 
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., [1998) 8 SCC 119, 
relied.on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 7109 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.99 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 2o·p of 1998. 
\ 
M.L. Verma, A.P. Sipha, Dhannendra Sinha and Pavan Kumar for the 
Appellant. 
' 
\ 
G.L. Sanghi, Atul Kurtl~. Hari Shankar, (Sunil Kr. Bharti) for Ranbir 
Singh Yadav for the Respond~nt. 
\ 
The following Judgment Of the Court was delivered : 
Appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent 
/ 
918 
\ 
J 
-
~ 
> 
,.. 
•• 
-
.1 
V. JAIN v. JAGJIT SJNGH 
919 
is the tenant. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller 
under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) and Eviction Act, 
1973 (in short 'the Act') for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of 
his bona fide need for the premises. The need set up by the appellant in the 
said application was that he is un-employed and his elder brother is carrying 
on business at Balasaur ~ Orissa and the said business is in the name of his 
elder brother wherein the appellant has no interest. It was also stated that he 
was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice coastal area is not fit 
for his habitation. It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry 
on business of Karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he 
deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000 in the fixed deposit. The need set up by the 
landlord was denied by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller, after 
considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of 
the landlord was bona fide and consequently, the application filed by the 
landlord was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the 
appellate authority constimted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed 
the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant thereafter preferred a revision 
under sub-see<:tion (6) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court recorded at 
a fmding that the need of the appellant is not bona fide. Consequently, the 
revision was allowed and the order of the Court below was set aside. It is 
against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged 
E 
that in view of the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court, it was 
not open to the High Court to reassess and reappreciate the evidence and 
come to a different finding. We fmd merit in the submission. The Rent 
Controller, after considering the evidence on record, recorded a fmding that 
the need of the landlord was bona fide. The said fmding was affirmed by the 
p 
appellate authority. The appellate authority recorded fmding to the following 
effect. 
"10. Then bona fide requirement of the landlord for the demised shop 
cannot be said to he his mere wish. He, no doubt, is permanently 
residing with· his family members in Orissa but he wants to start his 
G 
business in the demised shop of Karyana food grains. Though after 
the institution of the petitiOn but he has also deposited Rs. 45,000 in 
the bank so as to start business in the shop. He is a commerce 
graduate. No. doubt, he has got his name registered with the Employ-
ment Exchange for service but he has not got any service by now. So 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 

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