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

PETITIONER: RAI CHAND JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MISS CHANDRA KANTA KHOSLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1990

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  744            1990 SCR  Supl. (3)  91  1991 SCC  (1) 422        JT 1990 (4)   638  1990 SCALE  (2)1131

ACT:     East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act,  1949--Sections 11   and  15--High  Court--Interference  with  findings   of fact--Whether permissible.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent, land-lady leased out the demised premises to the  appellant on the basis of a rent note  dated  19.5.1978 wherein it was stipulated that the demised premises were  to be  used for residential purpose and that the  tenant-appel- lant shall not sublet the premises or any part thereof.  The respondent  filed an application for eviction of the  appel- lant-tenant  on the ground that the tenant had not paid  the rent;  that he has changed the user of the premises by  set- ting  up a printing press‘Navneet Prakashan’ there and  fur- ther  that she required the premises for her bona fide  use. The appellant controverted the allegations. The trial  court allowed  the application holding that the  demised  premises were  used for the purpose other than that for which it  was let  out and the premises were let out to the appellant  and not  to  ’Navneet Prakashan’. However, on  the  question  of land-lady’s  requirement for bona fide use, the trial  court held against her.     On appeal by the tenant-appellant, the Appellate Author- ity  reversed the findings of the trial Court and held  that the  premises  were let out for running printing  press  and thus  there was no change of user. Against the  judgment  of the  appellate  authority, the  respondentlandlady  filed  a revision  in  the High Court. The High  Court  reversed  the order  passed by the appellate authority. It held  that  the demised premises was let out to the appellant and not to the Navneet  Prakashan and the purpose of tenancy is to use  the demised  premises as residence and since the  appellant  has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out to him, he was liable to be evicted. It  further held that the respondent required the premises for bona fide use. Hence this appeal by the tenant.     Before  this Court it is inter alia contended  that  the High  Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not  competent to  interfere  with the findings of fact arrived at  by  the Appellate Authority even if the findings are

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

92 erroneous  nor  It  can substitute its views  for  the  view expressed  by the appellate authority even if two views  are possible unless the findings are perverse. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  The  High  Court in exercising  its  power  under Section  15(5)  Is within its Jurisdiction  to  reverse  the findings of fact when the same were Improper and also  ille- gal. [100B]     The  tenant in the instant case, took the lease  in  his own  name  and the rent not was signed by him.  It  is  also evident  that  he is the sole proprietory  of  M/s.  Navneet Prakashan. In these circumstances it cannot but be held that the  lease of the demised premises was given to  the  tenant appellant for his residence. [101D-E]     Faqir Chand v. R.R. Bhanot, [1973] 3 SCR ,154;  Shalimar Tar  Products  Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors.,  [1988]  1  SCR 1023; Duli Chand (dead) by L. rs. v. Jagmender Dass,  [1990] 1  SCC  169; Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, AIR  1986  (Pb.  and Haryana) 119; Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors., [1988]  3 SCC 131; Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt, Surjit Kaur, [1987] 3 SCR 552;  M/s.  New Garage Ltd. v. Khushwant Singh and  Anr.,  [ 1951]  PLR 136; Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and  Ors.,  [1986] SCC (Suppl.) 281; Ved Parkash v. Darshan Lal Jain, [1986]  2 SCR 90, referred to.

JUDGMENT: