LexVIPIN KUMAR versus ROSHAN LAL ANAND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
VIPIN KUMAR
v.
ROSHAN LAL ANAND AND ORS.
MARCH 24, 1993
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ac4 1949: Sections 13(2) & 13(3).
TenanHmpairing the value or utility of building-Eviction on the
C ground of-inferential facrs as to impainnent should be deduced from proved
facts-Concurrent findings of impainnenHnteiference by Supreme Court
held not justified.
D
Constitution of India 1950: Article 136-Appeal-Concurrent findings
of fact-Power of Supreme Court to inteifere with.
Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949 provides that if a tenant has committed such acts as are likely to
impair materially the value of utility of the building or rental land the Rent
Controller may make an order evicting the tenant. A decree of eviction was
E passed against the appellant-tenant under this provision. The finding
recorded by the Rent Controller was that he had constructed a wall in the
varandah or the demised premises and put up a door without permission
of the landlord as a result or which the Row or light and air bad been
stopped and consequently the value or the demised shop bad been im;
paired and utility of the building was impaired. The decree of Rent
F Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the High
Court.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that Section 13(2) gave discretion to the Rent Controller to order eviction
G while in the cases covered under Section 13(3) it was made mandatory to
direct eviction of the tenant. Therefore, the Rent Controller had lo inde·
-
)-.
pendently consider and exercise discretion vested in him keeping in view
y
the proved facts to decree ejectment. II was, for the landlord under the
circumstances to prove such facts which warranted the Controller to order
eviction in his favour and since he had not proved such facts, the Court
H had committed illegality in granting the decree or ejectment.
640
_,..,,,{ ..
VIPIN KUMAR v. ROSHAN LAL
641
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. If the tenant had committed such acts a~are likely to
impair materially the value or utility of the building, he is liable to
ejectment. The impairment of the value or utility of the building is from
the point of the landlord and not of the tenant. [643 A·C)
A
B
2. By constructing the wall, whether the value or utility of die
building has materially been impaired is an inferential fact to k deduced
from proved facts. In the instant case, the proved facts are that the
appellant had constructed the wall and put up a door therein without the
consent of the landlord. Consequently, the Oow of the air and light has C
been stopped. He removed the fixtures. From these facts it was inferred
that the value or utility of the building has been materially affected.
Therefore, it is a finding of fact of which the Court cannot evaluate the
evidence and upset that finding. [643 ·o.E, 642 E)
3. Undoubtedly the statute, on proof of facts, gives discretion to the D
Court, by Section 13(2) and made mandatory in cases cove~d by Section
13(3), to order eviction. In a given set of facts the Rent Controller, despite
finding that the tenant committed such acts which may impair the value
or utility of the building yet may refuse to grant the relief of eviction. It is
i!lr
for the tenant to plead and prove that the circumstances are such as may
not warrant eviction and then the burden shifts on to the landlord to rebut .E
these facts or circumstances. Then the Rent Controller is to weigh pros and
cons and exercise the discretion. No such attempt was made by the appel·
lant. So no fault can be laid at the Rent Controller's failure to exercise the
discretion. [643 G·H, 644 A·BI '
Om Parkash v. Amar Singh & A11r., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 617, held inap-
plicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3271 of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.84 of the Punjab &
--(/
Haryana High Court in C.R.No.1125 of 1984.
Prem Malhotra and S.K. Gautam for the Appellant.
M.L. Verma and'Mrs. S.K. Bagga for the Respondents.
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993] 2 s.c ll.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
This appeal by Special Leave arises against the order of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.1125 of 1984 dated July 18,
1984 confirming the decree of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and
confirmed by tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.