http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MISS KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI C.K.S.RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/12/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami Harish Salve,  Sr.Adv., C.K.Sasi, Kailash Vasdev, Advs. with him for the appellant R.S.Hegde, and K.R.Nagraja, Advs. for the Respondent                        J U D G E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: K. Venkataswami. J.      The appellant-landlady.  who was  successful before the Competent Authority.  Konkan Division, Bombay, in getting an order of  eviction against  the respondent-tenant but failed before the  High Court.  has filed  this appeal  by  special leave challenging the reversing decision of the High Court.      The appellant  claiming to  be the  owner of  Flat No.3 situated on  the ground  floor of  building bearing Plot No. 42. The  Sindhi Immigrants  Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Chamber Road, Bombay, preferred an application under Section 13A1 (i)A(ii)  of the  Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control  Act,  1947  (hereinafter  called  the  ‘Act’) seeking eviction  of the tenant (respondent herein) from the said premises.  According to the appellant. the plot bearing No. 42  was initially allotted in favour of her mother. Smt. Navabat. wife  of Udharam,  by the Housing Society Later on. Moti Ram, brother of the appellant, was accepted as a member of the  Housing Society  in place  of  Smt.  Navabai,  Still later, i.e..  some time  in November,  1960, the appellant’s father Udharam became a member in place of Motiram. The said Motiram  constructed  the  present  building  consisting  of ground, first  and second  floors in Plot bearing No. 42. On 11.9.69. Udharam  died leaving  behind three  sons and three daughters. including  the appellant.  On 23.9.69.  A Deed of Declaration was  executed  among  the  legal  heirs  of  the deceased Udharam  whereunder the  appellant and  one of  her brothers, Hiranand  were  allotted  the  ground  floor.  The ground floor  itself consisted  of four  flats. The  Housing Society by  its Resolution  dated 24.9.69 accepted the inter se arrangement  as mentioned  above. Again  on  31.1.88.  on being informed, the Housing Society accepted the arrangement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

reached between  the appellant  and her  brother.  Hiranand, whereunder Flat  Nos. 1  and 2  of  the  around  floor  were allotted to Hiranand and Flat Nos. 3 and 4 fell to the share of the  appellant. Of  the four flats on the ground floor at the relevant  time. Flat  Nos.2 to  4 were  in possession of tenants.  The  respondent  was  tenant  in  Flat  No.3.  The appellant was  residing along with the family of her brother in Flat No.1.      Finding that  it was  no longer possible to get on with her sister-in-law,  the appellant  preferred an  application for possession of Flat No.3 alleging that she being a holder of scientific  post  in  the  Department  of  Bhabha  Atomic Research Centre  (for short  BARC) was  entitled  to  invoke Section  13A]  (A)  (ii)  on  the  Act.  She  also  enclosed necessary Certificate  to support  her claim  that  she  was holding a scientific post in the Department of BARC and that she had  no other suitable premises for her residence in the local area where the suit premises was situated. It was also claimed by  the appellant  that her  claim was bona fide and her joint  living with  her brother’s  family was  no longer possible for reasons given in the applications.      The applications  for  eviction  was  resisted  by  the respondent. It was alleged in the written statement that the appellant was  not the  owner of  the suit flat: theat there was no  relationship of  a landlord and tenant between them: that she  was not  holding a  post of  Scientific Officer in BARC: that  Flat No.1  on the  ground floor was conveniently divided into  Flat Nos.  1A and  1B and the appellant was in possession of  one of  the flats  and that,  therefore,  her claim was not bona fide.      Before the  Competent Authority, the appellant, besides examining herself,  has  examined  the  Assistant  Personnel Officer of  the BARC  to prove the Certificate dated 2.7.88. She also  examined the  Manager of  the Housing  Society  to support her  claim that  Flat Nos.  3 and  4 were ultimately allotted to  her share  under the  arrangement  between  the appellant and  her brother.  She also examined her Aunt, and old lady  of 46  years, to  prove that the appellant was not able to  get on  with her brother’s family consisting of her brother. sister-in-law  and two  college going  children and the relationship between the appellant and her sister-in-law was strained.      The respondent-tenant  examined himself to substantiate the allegations  made in  his written  statement.  The  also examined a  Supervisor in the Local Department of the Bombay Suburban  Electric  Ltd..  Santacruz,  to  depose  that  the appellant had  made  an  application  for  transfer  of  the electric meter in Flat No.1A to her name. He also examined a Ward Officer  in the  Chembur Ward  of the  Bombay Municipal Corporation to  elicit that the whole property No. 42 stands in the  name of Moti ram Udharam Jagasia. In addition to the above, he  also examined  his son to speak about the details regarding Flat No. 1A and 1B.      In the  light of  the pleadings.  Oral and  documentary evidence, the competent Authority by an order dated 31.3.90. held that the appellant had proved that she was the landlady qua respondent-tenant  as defined  in the  Act: that she was holding a  scientific post  in BARC  to enable her to invoke Section 13A1  (1) (A)  (ii) of  the Act that the Certificate produced by her was proved; that she had no other suitable a accommodation and  that her  claim for  possession was  bona fide one.  On those  findings, an  order of  eviction of the respondent-tenant from  the suit  flat  was  passed  by  the Competent Authority.      The tenant aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

a Revision  to the  High Court under Section 31F of the Act. Before the  High Court,  it was  contended on  behalf of the respondent-tenant that  the Certificate originality enclosed along with the application for eviction was not in order and the competent  Authority  ought  not  to  have  allowed  the applicant-landlady to  substitute the  Certificate issued by the Competent  Authority during the pendency of the eviction petition. This  ground did  not find  favour with  the  High Court and  the High Court after a lengthy discussion on this issue,  held   that  the  Certificate  produced  during  the pendency of  the trial would be sufficient compliance of the requirement under  Section 13A1 of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court rejected the first contention.      It was  then contented  before the  High Court that the second Certificate.  Even though  issued  by  the  Competent Authority, was  issued mechanically, arbitrarily and without application of  mind and was therefore, liable to be ignored and consequently  the order  of eviction passed on the basis of the Certificate was also liable to be set aside. In other words, the  contention of  the tenant  before the High Court was that  though the Certificate certifies that the landlady was holding  a post  of the  Scientific Officer, she being a Medical Doctor and discharging the duties of a Doctor, could not be  treated as  a Scientific Officer and the Certificate issued was,  therefore, not  on proper  appreciation of  the term. This  contention found  favour with the High Court and the High  Court held that merely because the BARC had chosen to style  the applicant  a "Scientific  Officer", that would not tract  the jurisdiction  of the  Court from  finding out whether the applicant was, in fact, a Scientific Officer and to whom the benefit of the provision was to be extended. The High  Court   found  that  the  applicant-landlady  was  not entitled to  the benefit  of Section 13A1 of the Act despite the  issuance   of   the   Certificate   and   despite   the conclusiveness of  the facts  stated in the Certificate. The High Court  also found  that the Certificate had been issued in colourable  exercise of  power and  the same  was tainted with malafides  and, therefore,  liable to  be lenored.  The High Court  did not  stop there  and  further  analysed  the contents of  the Certificate  sentence by  sentence and land that the facts given in the Certificate were not correct and on that  ground also. The certificate deserved to be ignored totally. Consequently,  the benefit  of Section  13A1 of the Act could not be extended to the applicant.      The High  Court also  considered the  question of  bona fide requirement and analysed the evidence, as if it was the Competent Authority,  led by  the  parties  and  came  to  a conclusion that  the inter se arrangement between the family members, though  accepted by  the Housing Society, cannot be accepted and  relied upon.  The High Court also found on re- appreciation of  facts that  the applicant could continue to occupy the  portion  in  her  possession  conveniently  and, therefore, she  had not been able to prove that she required the suit premises bona fide for her occupation.      On these  findings, the  High Court reversing the order of the  Competent Authority,  dismissed the applications for eviction.      Mr. Harish  N. Salve  learned senior  counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court exceeded it revisional jurisdiction  in re-appreciating the evidence and failed to  appreciate that  the appellant  was posted  as  a Scientific Officer  as per the Presidential Order, which had been gazetted  as per the Presidential Order, which had been gazetted and it was not for the High Court to go further and investigate whether  the appellant  was holding a scientific

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

post or  not. Even  though the  High Court  found  that  the Certificate  was   conclusive  according   to  Section  13A1 (1)(A)(b) it  went wrong in going beyond the Certificate. He submitted that the purpose of introducing special provisions in the  Act has  been successfully  defeated by dragging the proceedings for  nearly a  decade. According  to the learned counsel, the  relationship of  landlady and tenant cannot be disputed as  admittedly the  tenant was  paying rents to the appellant. Even  otherwise, the  fact the appellant is a co- owner she  is entitled to file the application for eviction. In the absence of other co-owners disputing her claim, it is not open to the tenant to challenge her title. In support of his contention  that a  co-owner can  file  a  petition  for eviction  the   learned  counsel   placed  reliance  on  two judgments of  this Court  reported in  Kanta Goel  Vs.  B.P. Pathak &  Ors. -  (1977)2 SCC  814. and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (dead)  by  LRs.  &  Ors.  (1989)  SCC  444.  He  also submitted that  on a  plain reading of Sections 13A1 and 31F the High  Court ought  not to  have rejected the Certificate and analysed  the Facts and evidence as if it was sitting in Appeal over the decision of the Competent Authority. Broadly speaking the  contents in the certificate regarding the plot number and  the name of the Society leave no doubt about the facts given  therein. In  any case, the respondent-tenant is not  prejudiced   by  small   mistakes  appearing   in   the certificate which  have been  unduly magnified  by the  High Court instead of ignoring the same.      Contending contrary,  Mr. R.S.  Hegde, learned  counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant, submitted that the High Court was  right  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the Certificate issued  by the  competent Authority  was without application of  mind and it was open to the High Court to go into the  correctness of  the  Certificate,  notwithstanding that the  Certificate was conclusive in the light of Section 13A1(2) of  the Act.  He also  submitted that  certain facts given in  the Certificate  regarding the ownership were also not correct  as found  by the High Court and, therefore, the High Court  was  justified  in  rejecting  the  Certificate. According    to  Mr.Hegde,  in  the  absence  of  registered documents specifying  the allotments  inter se  the heirs of deceased Udharam,  the claim  of the  appellant that she was the owner  of  a  specific  flat  cannot  be  accepted  and, therefore, the  High Court  was right  in holding  that  the arrangement  accepted  by  the  Housing  Society  cannot  be pressed into  service. Learned  counsel also wanted to raise the point  rejected by  the High  Court,  namely,  that  the Competent Authority  ought not to have allowed the applicant to substitute  the first Certificate which was not issued by the Competent Authority, though the second one was issued by the Competent Authority.      We have  carefully considered the rival submissions. We are of  the view that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in  interfering with the order of the Competent Authority without appreciating the limitation imposed by the Act. The  relevant portion  of Section  13A1(1)(A)(ii) and 2 reads as follows:-      "13A1. Members  of armed  forces of      the  Union,   scientists  or  their      successor-in-interest  entitled  to      recover  possession   of   premises      required for  their occupation. (1)      Notwithstanding  anything   to  the      contrary contained  in this  Act or      any contract,--      (A) a landlord who,--

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    (i)................................      ..................      (ii) holds a scientific post in the      Department of  Atomic Energy of the      Central Government or in any of its      aided institution  (hereinafter  in      this  section  referred  to  as  "a      scientist") or was such a scientist      and has retired as such (which term      shall include premature retirement)      and one  year has not elapsed since      his  retirement   on  the  date  of      making of the applications.      Shall be  entitled to  recover from      his tenant  the possession  of  any      premises owned by him on the ground      that such  premises are  bona  fide      required by  him for  occupation by      himself or  by any  member  of  his      family, by  making  an  application      for  the  purpose  of  recovery  of      possession of  the premises, to the      Competent   Authority;    and   the      Competent Authority  shall make  an      order of  eviction on  that  ground      if--      (a) in  the case  of a landlord who      is a  member of the armed forces of      the   Union,    he    produces    a      certificate    signed     by    the      authorised officer  to  the  effect      that,---      (1) he  is a  member of  the  armed      forces of the Union, or that he was      such a  member and  has retired  as      such, and      (ii) he  does not possess any other      premises suitable  for residence in      the local  area where  the premises      are situated; or      (b) in  the case  of a landlord who      is   scientist,   he   produces   a      certificate signed by an officer of      the Department of Atomic Energy of,      or  above,   the  rank   of  Deputy      Secretary  to   Government  to  the      effect that --      (i)  he   is  presently  holding  a      scientific post  in the  Department      of Atomic  Energy or  in any of its      aided institution  specified in the      certificate or  he was holding such      post  and   has  now  retired  with      effect from  the date  specified in      the certificate;      (ii) he  does not possess any other      suitable residence  (excluding  any      residential accommodation  provided      by Government)  in the  local  area      where the premises are situated.      (2) Any  Certificate  ganted  under      sub-section (1) shall be conclusive      evidence  of   the   facts   stated      there."      Section 31F reads as follows:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    "31F. Order  of Competent Authority      to be  non-appealable and  revision      by High  Court. (1) No appeal shall      the  against   an  order   for  the      recover     of  possession  of  any      premises  made   by  the  Competent      Authority in  accordance  with  the      procedure specified in Section 31F.      (2) The High Court may, at any time      sub motu  or on  the application of      any  person   aggrieved,  for   the      purpose of  satisfying itself  that      an order  made in  any case  by the      competent Authority  under  Section      31E is  according to  law. call for      the record  of that  case and  pass      such order in respect thereto as it      thinks fit:      Provided   that,   no   powers   of      revision at  the instance of person      aggrieved shall be exercised unless      an application  is presented within      ninety days  of  the  date  of  the      order sough to be revised."      The extracts of relevant provisions given above are the provisions as  amended by  the Bombay Rents (Amendment) Act, 1986, It  is necessary  in this  context to bear in mind the background which  necessasitated   the said amendment in the year 1986.  Section 13A1 itself was inserted into the Act by the Maharashtra  Amendment Act  52 of 1975. The said Section when introduced  initially was made applicable to members of armed forces  of Union  and their widows only. Subsequently, by Maharashtra  Amendment Act  11 of  1977, Section 13A2 was inserted. This  provision extended  the benefits  to persons holding scientific  posts in the Department of Atomic Energy of  the   Central  Government  or  in  any  of  its    aided institutions and  their widows.   However, the procedure for applications and  appeal remained  the same as appealable to the other  landlords for  similar relief in the year 1986, a further amendment was brought by the Maharashtra Legislature by combining  Section 13A1 and 13A2 and substituting Section 13A2 enabling  landlords to   recover possession of premises given on  expiry of  licence.  Another significant amendment introduced by  the Amending  Act  1986  related  to  special provisions for  recovery of  possession by landlords such as members of  armed forces  of the Union, scientists and their widows on  the  ground  that  the  premises  are  bona  fide required for  occupation by  them or  by any member of their family. It  was considered  that the normal procedure in the main Act  will take  time in  getting a  decree through  the Court and  the object of making special provisions (Sections 13A1  and   13A2)  cannot   be  achieved.   Therefore,   the legislature  provided   a  special   machinery  for  summary disposal of  the applications  made by  the landlords coming under Section  13A1 and  13A2 for  recovery of premises from the tenants.  Consequently, Part  IIA was  introduced in the Act making  suitable provisions for appointment of Competent Authorities for  the procedure  to be  followed by  them for giving  finality   to  the   order  made  by  the  Competent Authority subject  to only  a revision by the High Court and further barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.      It  is   also  necessary   to  extract   the  order  of appointment of  the appellant as a Scientific Officer, which reads as follows:-      Bombay-400039, the 5 May 1997

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    No. 5/97 BARC:- The President is pleased to appoint the undermentioned officers  of the  Baba Atomic Research Centre of this  Department to  the posts  indicated under column 35 with effect  from the dates indicated under column 5 against each, in an officiating capacity until further orders:- ----------------------------------------------------------- Sl.Name            Permanent    Offi-     Now         Date No.                post held    ciating   appointed                    if any       as        as ----------------------------------------------------------- 1.  -                 -          -          -           - 2.  -                 -          -          -           - 3.  -                 -          -          -           - 4. Dr. (Kum)          -         Scientif-  Scientif-  1.8.76    Kanta Udharam                ic Officer fic         (FN)    Jagasia                      /Engr.Gra- Officer/                                 de SC      /Engr.                                            Grade SD 5.  -                 -          -         -            - 6.  -                 -          -         -            - 7.  -                 -          -         -            - 8.  -                 -          -         -            - 9.  -                 -          -         -            - ------------------------------------------------------------      We shall now extract the Certificate, which is relevant for our purpose, issued by the competent Authority, from the Department of Atomic Energy which reads as follows:-              Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,                        Bombay 400 039                     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA                 DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY No. 25/42/88/R                                July 22,  1988                 TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is certify that :      (1) Dr.  (Kum.) Kanta  U.Jagasia,  Scientific  Officer, Grade SE, Medical Division is presently holding a Scientific Post" In  the scale  of pay of Rs. 3700-125-4700-150-5000 in the Bhabha  Atomic Research  Centre,  Department  of  Atomic Energy, Government of India.      (11) As per records, Dr. (Kum.) K.U. Jagasia, who is an owner of  accommodation  at  42,  Sindhi  Society,  Chembur, Bombay 400  071 does  not possess  any  other  residence  in Bombay in her name.      This certificate is issued to Dr. (kum.) Jagasia at her request for  intiating the  eviction proceedings against her tenants and  to get possession of her accommodation referred to in  item  (ii)  above,  keeping  in  view  the  provision contained in  Section 132A  of the  Bombay Rents,  Hotel and Lodging House  Rates Control  Act, 1947 as amended from time to time.                             Sd/-                      (R. Narayanaswamy)          Deputy Secretary/Staff Relations Officer.      with his background let us proceed further.      A look  at Section  31F will  show that the legislature deviating from  the normal  procedure otherwise  provided in the Act  by enabling  the aggrieved  parties to approach the Appellate Court  has provided  a limited jurisdiction to the High Court  against the  order of  the Competent  Authority, Under this  provision, the  High Court is not expected to go into the matter as an Appellate Authority reappreciating the evidence, as  has been done by the High Court in the present case. With  respect, we  may say   that  the High  Court has considered the  issue as  if it  was deciding  the  original suit.  The  legislature  has  expressly  provided  that  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Certificate granted  under Sub-Section  (1) of  Section 13A1 shall be  conclusive evidence  of the  facts stated  therein (Vide Sub-Section 2 extracted above). Nevertheless, the High Court went  beyond the  Certificate and  substituted its own reasoning for  not accepting  the Certificate. First of all, the Presidential  Order appointed the appellant (supra) as a Scientific Officer as notified in the Gazette was brought to the notice  of the  High Court and in spite of that the High Court found as follows:-      "It is  no doubt  true that Section      13A1(2) does  make the facts stated      in   the   Certificate   conclusive      evidence  of   the   facts   stated      therein. However,   when it is show      that the  applicant, by  virtue  of      the duties  that she  is performing      in the  BARC, cannot be included in      the  category   of   a   Scientific      Officer, it would be always open to      a court  to  consider  whether  the      applicant an  officer to  whom  the      legislature intended  to confer the      said benefit. Merely because of the      BARC, who  are the employees of the      applicant, have chosen to style the      applicant  a   Scientific   Officer      would not detract from the power or      the jurisdiction  of the Court from      finding out  whether the  applicant      is infact  a Scientific  Officer to      whom  the   benefit  of   the  said      provision is  to  be  extended.  To      cite   an   extreme   example,   to      illustrate my  point  of  view,  in      case BARC  issue a  certificate  in      favour of  a Peon  employed in  its      Office  that  he  is  a  Scientific      Officer would  it on account of the      conclusiveness which is given to it      by sub-sec.2,  come in  the way  of      the Court  to hold that he is not a      Scientific Officer.   In  my  view,      that  cannot  be  the  construction      that can  legitimately be  given to      the said  provision. This  would be      so even  if as has been pointed out      by   Shri    Abhyankar   that   the      appointment of the applicant, as is      seen from the aforesaid Gazette, is      made by the President of India."      We are unable either to appreciate the example given by the High  Court or  to accept  the conclusion reached by the High Court,  Likewise, the  High Court  found fault with the certificate in  stating that  the appellant was "an owner of accommodation at  42 Sindhi  Society, Chembur  Road  Bombay- 400071.", without  appreciating that Flat No.3, which is the suit premises,  is within  this plot  No.42 and  the parties were not  in doubt  about the  premises or about the Society whose name  is given  in the Certificate. The High Court was not justified  in finding  fault  with  the  Certificate  by pointing out  minor mistakes  viz.   in not  giving the full details. The  High Court  was also not right in finding that the Certificate was not acceptable for the additional reason that it  was issued  under colourable exercise of power  and with a malafide intention. we do not find that any such case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

was put forward or made out before the competent Authority.      We have  already noticed the special provisions made in the Act under Section 13A1 as well as under  part 11A of the Act and  the reason  for introducing the said provisions. In one sense  the question  regarding the  conclusive nature of contents contained  in the  Certificate issued  as  required under Section  13A1 is  no longer res integra. This Court in Shivram Anand  Shiroor Vs.  Mrs. Radhbai  Shantram Kowshik & Anr. -  (1984) 1  SCC 588 had occasion to consider the scope of Section  13A1 as  introduced in  the year 1975 before the same was  amended in  1977 and 1986. However, as regards the conclusiveness of  the Certificate there is no change in the Section. Chinnappa  Reddy, J.  speaking for a Bench of three Judges, while  repelling a  contention that  the Bombay Rent Act is  a welfare  legislation designed among other matters, to protect tenants from harassment and unreasonable eviction by landlords  and it  should therefore,  be interpreted in a broad and  liberal spirit  so  as  to  further  and  not  to constrain the object of the Act, observed as follows:-      "Notwithstanding   the    expressed      legislative bias  in favour  of the      tenant, the Legislature itself made      a  serious   departure   from   the      general  rule  so  as  to  lean  in      favour of landlords who are or were      members of  the armed services, and      who because  of the  exigencies  of      their  service  were  not  able  to      occupy their  own  premises  during      the  course   of   their   service.      Section 13-A1 was enacted, relaxing      the rigour  of Section 13 in favour      of a  landlord  who  is  or  was  a      member of  the armed  forces. It is      now provided  that if he produces a      certificate    in     the    manner      prescribed it  shall  be  taken  as      established, without  further proof      that he  is presently  a member  of      the armed  forces of  the union  or      that he  was such member and is now      a retired ex-serviceman and that he      does not possess any other suitable      residence in  the local  area where      he or  any member of his family can      reside. All  that he has to further      prove is that he bona fide requires      the  premises   for  occupation  by      himself  or   any  member   of  his      family.    The    certificate    is      conclusive proof  that he  does not      possess any  suitable residence  in      the local  area, but  not  that  he      bona fide  requires  the  same  for      occupation by himself or any member      of his  family. There  may be cases      where he does not possess any other      suitable  residence  in  the  local      area and  yet he does not bona fide      require the premises for occupation      by himself  or any  member  of  his      family, being  comfortably  settled      elsewhere with  no need or pressure      to  move.   But  as   soon  as   he      establishes  that   he  bona   fide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    required    the     premises    for      occupation for  his family,  he  is      entitled to  recover possession and      does not have to further prove that      greater hardship would be caused to      him than  to the tenant if a decree      for possession  is not  granted. It      is of  course,  implicit  that  the      person producing the certificate is      the   landlord.   It   is   further      implicit that  the person mentioned      in  the  certificate  presently  or      previously a  member of  the  armed      forces was  at a simultaneous point      of time both landlord and member of      the armed forces."      The Bench  has noticed  an  earlier  decision  on  this provision, namely,  Winifred Ross  Vs. Ivy Fonseca (1984)  1 SCC 288.      In above  observations on  the conclusive nature of the Certificate supports  the view  taken by  us in  this  case. Further, it  must be  remembered that  when the  three-Judge Bench considered  the case, Part IIA was not introduced and, therefore, against  the order  of  the  Rent  Controller  an appeal was  provided and  further revision under Article 227 of the  Constitution of India was available to the aggrieved parties. Now,  by introduction  of Part IIA the order of the competent Authority  was to  be final subject to revision by the High  Court under  Section 31F.  This should  have  been borne in  mind by  the High  Court while  dealing  with  the matter in hand, which the High Court failed to do.      The High  Court also  was not  justified in interfering with the  considered  finding  of  the  Competent  Authority regarding the  bona fide  requirement of the landlady on the basis of  evidence  given  by  her  Aunt.  The  High  Court, forgetting that  it had  a limited  revisional jurisdiction. analysed the  evidence and substituted its findings in place of the  findings of the Competent Authority. On a perusal of the evidence,  we find  that the  findings arrived at by the Competent Authority  on the basis of oral evidence cannot be said to be perverse or even unreasonable  requiring the High Court to  reverse the  same. It is well settled that  though another view  is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional  Court may not interfere with the findings of the lower  courts on  that ground.  We do  not think  it  is necessary to  reiterate that  a co-owners’  can maintain not seriously disputed before us. We find that question does not strictly arise  for consideration  on the facts of this case as the  legal heirs  had settled  among themselves regarding allotment of  distinct and  different shares  to each one of them, which  was accepted  by the  Housing Society.  We have also seen that the tenant was paying rents to the appellant. The Competent  Authority on  this  aspect  has  observed  as follows:-      "Apart from the above evidence, the      applicant’s  evidence   show   that      after 31.1.1988  the opponent’s son      Chetan used  to pay  rent by cheque      on behalf  of his  father drawn  in      favour  of   the   applicant.   The      applicant has  issued rent receipts      to him  and she  has  produced  the      counterfoils of  rent receipts from      February 1988  onwards (Ex.A3). The      reverse of  the  counterfoils  bear

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

    the signature of the opponent’s son      Chetan. The  opponent has  produced      the rent   receipts (Ex. R-1). This      Evidence establishes  the fact that      the  appointment   has  become  the      contractual tenant of the applicant      after 31.1.1988."      Though the  matter of  hardship is  not quite  relevant when the application for eviction is under Section 13A1. The Competent Authority  has also  considered  that  aspect  and found as follows:-      "Coming to  the third contention of      Mr. Murthy  regarding hardship, the      question of  hardship is irrelevant      for the purpose of sec. 13A1 of the      Rent  Act.  Apart  from  this,  the      evidence on record reveals that the      opponent has other accommodation at      his disposal.  The  opponent’s  son      Dinesh has  constructed a  bungalow      in  Mysore   Colony   at   Chembur,      Bombay.  The   opponent   is   also      presumed to  be residing  with  his      son  Subanna  in  the  premises  of      Maharashtra Housing  Board,  Kurla,      to   avail   himself   of   medical      facilities  available   to  him  by      virtue of  his son Subanna being in      employment of  B.A.R.C.  The  third      contention raised   by  Mr. Murthy,      therefore, is not valid."      In the  circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court was  not justified  in reversing  the finding  of  the Competent Authority and allowing the revision.      In the  result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, the order of  the High  Court is  set  aside  and  that  of  the competent Authority  is restored.  There will be no order as to costs.