Revision petition dismissed rejecting challenge to ejectment order. Court held High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and lower court findings on bona fide need were not perverse.
The revision petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No. 3736 of 2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 3736 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.12.2018
S. Satbir Singh
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Madan Lal Rambani (deceased) through LRs and others ........Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent no. 1-LRs.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Madan Lal Rambani (since deceased) now represented by his legal heirs filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 to 4 from first floor and barsati of the building bearing no khana shamari no. 1621 (now 1621/V) situated in Bazar Babe Atal Sahib, Amritsar. The demised premises was let out to Mohinder Gopal Singh w.e.f. 15.06.1982 at the monthly rent of `30/- for running hosiery work business. He died in 1998 leaving behind revision-petitioner and proforma respondents as his legal heirs.
hosiery material and then selling the same in the premises in question. JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No. 3736 of 2015 -2-
However, that portion was acquired by the Government under the scheme of beautification of Golden Temple. Thereafter, Mohinder Gopal Singh ceased to occupy the premises in question and stopped business of hosiery work and gave the same to respondent no. 1-Harbeer Singh for residential purpose.
“ (iii) That the applicant requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation. The applicant is residing in village Chabba and does not own or possess any other building except the building in question in any urban or rural area. The applicant is having one son namely Vikram Rambani who is of the age of 28 years and is likely to be married, but as the applicant is not having sufficient accommodation and as such the marriage of his son is being delayed. The applicant is also having four married daughters who offently used to visit the applicant along with their children but as the applicant is not having sufficient accommodation as such it is too difficult for him and his daughters to stay in the house where the applicant is residing at present. The wife of the applicant is also suffering from eye disease and also blood pressure and knee trouble and as
JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No. 3736 of 2015
-3-
such the applicant wants to shift from village Chabba to Amritsar city, and even otherwise it is in the interest of justice, equity and fair play that the possession of the demised premises is handed over to the applicant so that he may be able to enjoy the retired life. The applicant is retired person and he was retired in the year 1987 as an Auditor from Punjab State Electricity Board.”
CR No. 3736 of 2015
-4-
building for non-residential purpose, which is against the plea raised by him.
“15. After hearing arguments and from the scrutiny of the case file, it reveals that the applicant while he was alive himself appeared in the witness box as AW-9 and his son Vikram Rambani also stepped into witness box as AW-10 and both of them categorically deposed that the demised premises is required for residential as well as business purpose to them as the wife of Madan Lal applicant and mother of AW-10 Vikram Rambani is not feeling well.
JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-5-
CR No. 3736 of 2015
She is arrested by numerous diseases and for that purpose, it is very difficult to come from village Chabba where they are residing to Amritsar for treatment and other medical facilities and for the purpose, they want to demolish the old structure over the property in dispute and want to reconstruct for residential and commercial purposes, which is required to the son of the applicant AW-10 Vikram Rambani.
16. I thank (sic think) it is not mere desire of the applicant, rather they want to settle themselves for residential or business purpose at Amritsar and moreover as per settled law, the tenant can not dictate the terms of starting business or residing to the landlord and it is established on the file by applicant that building in question is not only bona fide required for personal use and occupation to Madan Lal, rather also required to his son AW-10 Vikram Rambani.....”
JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No. 3736 of 2015
-6-
“We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the
JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No. 3736 of 2015 -7-
findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself of correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is
JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CR No. 3736 of 2015
-8-
required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”
( SURINDER GUPTA ) December 20, 2018 JUDGE jk Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No JITENDER KUMAR 2019.01.02 13:55 I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document Whether reportable Yes/No Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact of the Rent Controller regarding the landlord's bona fide need for possession.
Whether the landlord's stated need for reconstructing premises for residential and commercial purposes constitutes a valid ground under Section 13(1)(ii) of the Act.
Whether the lower authorities err in law or suffered a gross miscarriage of justice in acquitting the landlord's claim for ejectment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Dilbahar SinghReferred¶10
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Dilbahar Singh, 2014(9) SCC 78 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satbir Singh
Madan Lal Rambani (representing LRs)
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
