http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  8439 of 2007

PETITIONER: Harvinder Kaur Sabharwal

RESPONDENT: Navneet Kaur

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2008

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ) NO.8439 OF 2007  

1.          The petitioner in this special leave petition is a tenant in respect of  Booth No.22, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh in the State of Punjab (in short ’the  demised premises) who has been sought to be evicted by the respondent on  the ground that she required the demised premises for her personal use and  for opening a retail-cum-wholesale shop of garments in the demised  premises which was a non-residential building. The Rent Controller  dismissed the application of the landlady/respondent. Feeling aggrieved, an  appeal was carried before the appellate authority which had reversed the  finding on  the  question  of  bona  fide  requirement  and

directed eviction of the petitioner. Against the order of eviction passed by the  appellate authority reversing the order of rejection passed by the Rent  Controller, the petitioner approached the High Court for setting aside the order  of the appellate authority. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected  the  application filed by the tenant/petitioner against which this special leave  petition  has  been filed which was heard on notice in presence of the learned  counsel for the parties. 2.           Mr.P.K.Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  tenant/petitioner sought to argue that  in order to come to a conclusion on the  question of bona fide requirement of the landlady/ respondent, the High Court  as well as the appellate authority had failed to consider the material provisions  of the Act as well as the material evidence on record for which the decree  could be passed in favour of the landlady. For this purpose, we   have   examined  the  finding  of  the  appellate

authority as well as of the High Court and we find that  the High Court as well  as the appellate authority on  consideration  of  the material evidence,  oral  and   documentary, came to a conclusion of fact that the landlady/respondent was  entitled  to  an order of eviction. Mr. Ghosh, however, could not satisfy us by  showing that the findings on  the  question  of bona fide requirement of the  landlady/respondent was either perverse or arbitrary or they had failed to  consider the provisions of the Act for grant of an order of eviction. That  being  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the  position and in view of the fact  that this special leave petition is concluded   by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the  appellate  authority  as well  as by the High Court  on  the  question of bona fide requirement, we have no  other alternative but to dismiss the special leave petition. Accordingly, this  special leave petition is rejected.

       3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant time to the  petitioner to vacate the premises in question by 31st of March, 2009, subject to  filing a usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from this date.