VINOD KUMAR ARORA versus SMT. SURJIT KAUR

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 17-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VINOD KUMAR ARORA 
v. 
SMT. SURJIT KAUR 
JULY 17, 1987 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as in force in 
,.... 
Union Territory of Chandigarh): ss. 13(3)(a) and 11-Bona fide re-
quirement and change in user-Eviction of tenant-Concurrent find-
-->-"
ings of statutory authorities vitiated-Such findings whether binding on 
C revisional court-Conversion of residential premises into non__residen-
tial premises without consent of Rent Controller-Whether tenant 
entitled to get over statutory embargo by pleading that landlady was 
aware of and consented to change in user. 
,.._
Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 136-Jurisdiction of 
D Courts-New questions of fact and law-Admissibility of. 
The deceased husband of the respondent leased out the entire 
portion of his house, except a big hall, to tenant in Chandigarh. He was 
then putting up in a Government quarter. After his death, his widow-
the respondent, leased out the hall to foe appellant on April 1, 1981 for 
E a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.650. The Government 
quarter which had been allotted to her husband was transferred to the 
name of her eldest son. 
, 
The respondent filed two applications, more or less concurrently, 
in February 1982 against tenants of both the portions of the house 
F 
seeking their eviction OL grounds that they had changed the user of the 
\ 
premises to non-residential purposes, and that she bona fide required 
.~ 
the premises for her own use and occupation. The Rent Controller and 
the Appellate Authority held that the first tenant had changed the user 
of the premises and ordered his eviction. Insofar as the appellant was 
concerned, both the authorities found against the respondent on both 
G the grounds and dismissed the action for eviction. The High Court 
dismissed the revision preferred by the first tenant, but allowed the one" • 
filed by the respondent and ordered the eviction of the second tenant 
too. The first tenant abided by the order of eviction and surrendered 
possession to the respondent. 
H 
The second tenant, however, appealed by special leave to this 
552 
VINOD v. SURJIT KAUR 
553 
-..4. 
Court. It was contended that when the Rent Controller and the Appel-
A 
late Authority have rendered concurrent findings of the fact, the High 
Court was not entitled to disregard those findings, and come to a diffe-
rent conclusion of its own, that the respondent could not seek recovery 
of possessing of the hall by m~ans of an application under s. 13(3)(a) 
(i)(a) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for residential use 
because even of the hall had been let out for residential and non-
B 
j... residential purposes, the premises would constitute a non-residential 
building as per the amended definition under the East Punjab Rent 
......_ Restriction (Chandigarh Amendment) Act, 1982, that be was entitled to 
raise these questions though they had not been raised earlier because 
they were questions of law, that as per the second proviso to s. 13(3)(a) 
-
of the Act the respondent was not entitled to apply once over again for 
eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement after having c 
>-
obtained an earlier order on the same ground. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1 The findings of the Rent Controller and the Appel-
D 
~ late Authority are vitiated by inherent defects. The High Court was, 
therefore, justified in taking the view that those findings have no bind-
ing force on the revisional court. [565E] 
1.2 The rule that when the courts of fact render concurrent find-
ings of fact, the High Court would not be entitled to disregard those 
E 
findings and come to a different ronclusion of its own, would apply 
~· where the findings have been renderd with reference to facts. 
In the instant case, both the statutory authorities have based their 
°" 
findings on conjectures and surmises and lost sight of relevant pieces of 
evidence which have not been controverted. When the evidence of the F 
respondent and her son, which has not been challenged, was that the 
Government quarter consisted of only one bed room, one store, one 
kitchen and one small dining room and nothing more, it has been con-
strued by the authorities as comprising of three bed rooms and held that 
as there was enough accommodation for the entire family she was not 
likely to vacate it. When the respondent wanted the entire house to be G 
• )-vacated by the two 

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