Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction – Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seeking to evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement – Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On revision, the High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on the ground that appellant had not been forthright in the description of the property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner and the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed – On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings along with the site plan attached, it makes evident that the appellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement – Appellant had further made position clear in her cross-examination – Thus, it is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the property – The material placed on record indicate that the appellant and other members of the family might be having title or interest in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons – Judgment of High Court set aside and the orders of Rent Controller restored.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – s.25-B(8) – Limited jurisdiction under – Held: In terms of the proviso to s.25-B(8), a limited window is allowed to the extent that the High Court may call for the record, for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order had been passed in accordance with law – Pure finding of fact is not open for interference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD. 1. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the same with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondent’s tenants. [Para 18][509-GH]
2. Noteworthy, it is that it had not been the case of the respondents that they were not the tenants in the premises in question. The only attempt on the part of the respondents had been to suggest that other properties and accommodations were available with the family. Such suggestion on the part of respondents had not been accepted by the Rent Controller as operating against the assertion of bona fide requirement of the appellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentially been the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record. There was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague ground of want of clarity about description of the property in question. [Para 19][510-A-C]
3. The appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other referred members of the family might be having title or interest in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons. [Para 22][510-E]
4. The findings on bonafide requirement of the appellant in relation to both these cases could not have been disturbed by the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of clarity about identification of the property in question. [Para 23][510-F]
Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 549 : [2003] 2 SCR 580; Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.