http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2309  of  2001

PETITIONER: VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HAJI  ISMAIL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/03/2001

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT:

D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

       Leave granted.

   The  appellant  Vallampati Kalavathi is the landlady  of the  building  bearing  door No.2-11-38-A of  Vulli  Street, Vizianagaram,  in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  the respondent Haji Ismail is the tenant of the said premises.

   The appellant filed the petition under section 10 of the Andhra  Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,  1960  (for  short the Act) seeking eviction  of  the tenant  on  two grounds:  (1) that the tenant has  committed default  to  pay or tender the rent in respect of  the  said building  in  time  and (2) that the landlady  requires  the premises  for  shifting  her residence  to  Vizianagaram  to educate  her children, a son and a daughter, who are to join courses  there  for  their  higher  education.   The  tenant refuted  the  allegations made by the landlady on  both  the grounds.   He  denied  that the landlady has any  bona  fide requirement for occupying the premises.

   The  Rent  Controller, on appreciation of  the  evidence placed  on  the record, held in favour of the  landlady  and ordered  eviction of the tenant on both the grounds vide the order dated 15.4.88 in R.C.C.  No.9/82.  On appeal, the Rent Control  Appellate Authority on independent appraisal of the evidence  in  the  case, set aside the finding of  the  rent controller  regarding default in payment/tender of the  rent but confirmed the finding regarding bona fide requirement of the  landlady and maintained the order of eviction passed by the  rent  controller  vide the order dated 11.6.97  in  RCA No.15/88.

   The  tenant filed the civil writ petition No.3126/97  in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22 of the Act challenging  the order of the Appellate Authority.  A single Judge  of the High Court by order dated 25.1.1999 interfered with  the  concurrent findings of fact recorded by the  Rent Controller  and  the Appellate Authority that  the  landlady

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

required  the  premises  bona fide for her  occupation,  set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the  eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.  The said judgment/order  is  under challenge in this appeal filed  by special leave.

   In  the order passed on 26.11.1999 this Court took  note of the contention raised by the senior counsel appearing for the  appellant that the respondent who was the petitioner in the  High  Court  had  not filed  any  additional  affidavit showing  the subsequent events and that the learned  Judges observation  at page 4 of the judgment appears to have  been based  on  the basis of available record before  the  Courts below  and according to the learned counsel there is nothing on record to show that after getting the MBBS degree her son was  working elsewhere.  In the said order it was also noted that  the case of the landlady on evidence was that her  son wanted  to  establish  his  practice   in  the  premises  in question.   On the above statement notice was issued in  the case.

   The  main thrust of the arguments of the counsel for the appellant  was  that  the  High  Court  committed  error  in disturbing  the concurrent findings of fact recorded by  the Rent  Controller  and  the   Appellate  Authority  that  the landlady bona fide required the house for her occupation for the  purpose of educating her children at Vizianagaram.  The learned  counsel  further  contended   that  the  so  called subsequent  developments  in the case on the basis of  which the  High  Court  has disturbed the concurrent  findings  of fact,  are that the daughter of the landlady has been  given in  marriage  and the son of the landlady has completed  his education  are  not  based  on   any  material  on   record. According  to  the  learned  counsel for  the  appellant  no application  was  filed  to bring on record  any  additional material  relating to the aforementioned matters before  the Rent Controller or even before the Appellate Authority.  The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the contention that  it  was  not  open to the High Court  to  disturb  the concurrent  findings of facts recorded by the forums  within limited  scope  of  revisional jurisdictional vested  in  it under Section 22 of the Act.

   The  learned  counsel  appearing   for  the   respondent supported the judgment/order of the High Court.

   In  the  year 1982 when the landlady filed the  petition for  eviction  of  the tenant which was  registered  as  RCC No.9/1982  her son had completed intermediate course and her daughter  was  studying in the intermediate class.  She  had pleaded  that  she  and her family members intend  to  shift residence  from Parvatipuram to Vizianagaram with a view  to provide  better  facilities  for  higher  education  to  the children.   Since there was delay in getting the  possession of  the house the landlady had to send her son to Anakapalli for  studying  B.Sc.  As the litigation lingered on her  son completed  the  B.Sc.   course  and joined  MBBS  course  at Visakhapatnam   and  the  marriage  of  the   daughter   was performed.   As noted earlier, both the Rent Controller  and the  Appellate Authority had accepted the case of bona  fide requirement  of the landlady of the premises for residential purpose.   Referring to the deposition of the husband of the landlady  who  was examined as PW1 the  Appellate  Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

took  note of the fact that the son was studying in 3rd year Medicine  in Visakhapatnam and the daughter was married  and living with her husband.  The witness further stated that he and  his wife (landlady) intend to reside in the building in question and their son intends to set up medical practice at Vizianagaram  and  he  (witness) also intends  to  carry  on business  there.  The Appellate Authority also took note  of the  fact  that  the tenant was not using  the  premises  in question  which  is a residential building  for  residential purpose but is using it for running cloth business;  that he resides  in another building owned by him.  On  appreciation of  the  evidence  led  by both the  parties  the  Appellate Authority held that the personal requirement of the house as pleaded   by  the  landlady  is   bona  fide  and   genuine. Accordingly,  the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction  passed  by  the Rent Controller on the  ground  of personal requirement of the landlady.

   The  High Court, as appears from the discussions in  the Judgment,  has  set  aside the concurrent  findings  of  the Forums  below merely taking note of the fact that the son of the   landlady  was  studying  in   3rd  year  Medicine   at Visakhapatnam  and  might have completed his MBBS Course  in the  meanwhile  and  that her daughter, after  marriage,  is living with her husband.

   Taking  note  of these facts the High Court  appears  to have  rushed  to the conclusion that the requirement of  the landlady  for providing facility for higher education to her children no longer subsists and on that ground set aside the concurrent  findings  recorded  by the  Courts  below.   The question  is since one of the two children of the  landlady, the daughter, has left her parental home for her matrimonial home  and the son is due to complete the MBBS course, can it be  said that the need as pleaded in the petition no  longer subsists?   Connected  with it is the question  whether  the High  Court in revision could interfere with the  concurrent findings  of  fact taking a different view on the  materials which  were considered by the Forums below for accepting the case  of  the landlady?  When the litigation lingers on  for years  certain factual developments are bound to take place. All  such  developments  are not  necessarily  relevant  for adjudication  of  the  case.  No doubt,  in  proceeding  for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement of  the  landlord  sometime subsequent developments  may  be relevant  to be looked into for enabling the authorities  to make  a  fair  and proper adjudication of  the  controversy. While   taking   note  of    subsequent   developments   the Authorities/Courts should keep in mind whether such material is  relevant  and  can  turn the balance in  the  case,  the controversy   should  be  decided   with  reference  to  the pleadings  of the parties and the findings placed on record. In  the  present case, as noted earlier, the husband of  the landlady stated in his deposition that their daughter, after marriage,  was  living  with her husband and their  son  was studying  in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam.  Therefore, this  was  not  a  subsequent   development  which  was  not considered   by  the  Rent   Controller  or  the   Appellate Authority.   The  finding recorded by the High Court in  the revisional  proceeding  amounts to taking a  view  different from  those  recorded  by the Forums below on  the  evidence available  on  the record.  Was this permissible within  the purview  of  the revisional power vested in the  High  Court under  section  22  of the Act?  The said section  reads  as follows:

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

   22.   Revision:- (1)The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under  this Act by the Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20, for  the  purpose of satisfying itself as to  the  legality, regularity  or of propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

   (2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the  High  Court  under  sub-section (1), shall  be  in  its discretion.

   As  the language of the section suggests, the revisional power vested in the High Court is to be used for the purpose of  satisfying  itself  as to the  legality,  regularity  or propriety of such order or proceeding, and if satisfied that the  order/orders  suffer any such vice the High  Court  may pass  such order in reference to the proceeding as it thinks fit.  The expression legality, regularity or propriety are undoubtedly wider than mere correction of jurisdictional error.   But even such revisional power cannot be  exercised to  upset  the concurrent findings of fact recorded  by  the Forums  below  merely on the ground that the High  Court  is inclined to take a different view on the materials on record in  the case.  We should not be understood to be saying that the concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered with  in revision.  For such interference it has to be shown that  the findings recorded by the Forums below suffer  from any  inherent  defect  or  are   based  on  inadmissible  or irrelevant  materials or are so perverse that no  reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials.

   On  the facts and circumstances of the case, we have  no hesitation to hold that the case in hand is not such a case. It  follows that the High Court was not right in interfering with  the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

   The  appeal is accordingly allowed.  The Judgment of the High   Court   under  challenge  is   set  aside   and   the Judgment/order   passed   by  the    Rent   Controller,   at Vizianagaram dated 15.4.1988 which was confirmed by the Rent Control  Appellate  Authority-  cum-  Subordinate  Judge  at Vizianagaram  by  order dated 11.6.1997 is restored.   There will, however, be no order for costs.