9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Default in payment of arrears of rent. 2. Diminishing the value and utility of the premises. 3. Ceasing to occupy the premises without reasonable cause. 4. Shifting residence to another house. Summary: Issue 1: Default in Payment of Arrears of Rent The appellant sought eviction on the grounds that the respondent was a defaulter in respect of payment of arrears of rent from 1-8-1979 to 31-7-1982 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month amounting to Rs. 720/- and House Tax to Rs. 90/-. The Rent Controller found that since the tenant-respondent had paid the arrears of rent, house tax, and interest on 18-1-1983, the ground for eviction u/s 13(2)(1) of the Act became non-existent. Issue 2: Diminishing the Value and Utility of the Premises The appellant claimed that the respondent had started tethering cattle and putting dung cakes on the walls of the demised premises, diminishing its value and utility. The Rent Controller found no cogent and reliable evidence to prove this claim. Issue 3: Ceasing to Occupy the Premises Without Reasonable Cause The Rent Controller concluded that the respondent-tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without any reasonable cause and had shifted his residence to House No.351, Ward No.7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, purchased in the name of his wife. This finding was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Issue 4: Shifting Residence to Another House The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the respondent-tenant had shifted his residence to a house reasonably sufficient for his requirements, thus making him liable for eviction u/s 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. The High Court, however, set aside these findings, stating that it was not established that the respondent-tenant had acquired or was in possession of reasonably sufficient accommodation. Revisional Powers of the High Court The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in re-assessing the evidence and substituting its own conclusions in exercise of its revisional powers u/s 15(6) of the Act. The Court noted that the revisional power is not as wide as appellate power and should not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgments of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, which were based on thorough examination and appreciation of evidence. Conclusion The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, restoring the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, and awarded costs of Rs. 1000/- to the appellant.
|
