Kalavathi Vs. Haji Ismail  Insc 168 (23 March 2001)
Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil. D.P. Mohapatra, J.
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.
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:
that the tenant has committed default to pay or tender the rent in respect of
the said building in time and
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment/order of
the High Court.
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 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.
the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent
Controller on the ground of personal requirement of the landlady.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the High Court under
sub-section (1), shall be in its discretion.
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.
facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the
case in hand is not such a case.
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.
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.