1974 (4) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent bona fide required the Lohia Bazar shop for starting his own business as a dealer in iron and steel materials.
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in second appeal by reversing the finding of the Additional District Judge on the question of bona fide requirement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bona Fide Requirement of Lohia Bazar Shop:
The respondent, the owner of the Lohia Bazar shop, had been attempting to evict the appellant, a tenant, to use the shop for his own business purposes. Initially, the respondent claimed he needed the shop for his grocery business, but later amended his plea to state that he required the shop for starting a new business as a dealer in iron and steel materials. The Trial Court accepted this claim and passed a decree for eviction. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, finding that the respondent did not genuinely require the shop for the stated purpose. The High Court later overturned the Additional District Judge's finding, concluding that the respondent's assertion, coupled with objective facts, was sufficient to establish bona fide requirement.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeal:
The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in second appeal by re-evaluating the factual findings of the Additional District Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court in second appeal cannot re-appropriate evidence and interfere with findings of fact reached by the lower appellate court unless there is an error of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the findings of fact by the Additional District Judge were based on evidence and were neither arbitrary nor perverse. Therefore, the High Court erred in interfering with these findings in second appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Additional District Judge's finding that the respondent did not bona fide require the Lohia Bazar shop for starting a new business was a finding of fact. The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with this finding in second appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree for eviction passed by the High Court, and dismissed the respondent's suit for eviction. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.