1987 (7) TMI 586 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exercise of revisional powers by the High Court in setting aside concurrent findings.
2. High Court's failure to note the deemed non-residential status of the premises.
3. Bona fide requirement of the premises for residential use.
4. Change of user of the premises from residential to non-residential.
5. Applicability of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act.
6. Applicability of the second proviso to Section 13(3)(a).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exercise of Revisional Powers by the High Court:
The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, which had rejected the respondent's claim of bona fide need for the premises for residential use. The High Court disregarded these findings, deeming them based on "conjectures and surmises" and not on factual evidence. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had incorrectly assumed that the government quarters occupied by the respondent had three bedrooms, while evidence showed it had only one bedroom. The High Court was justified in rejecting these findings due to their reliance on "imaginary material and not facts."

2. High Court's Failure to Note the Deemed Non-Residential Status:
The High Court did not address whether the appellant had changed the user of the hall from residential to non-residential purposes by running a clinic. The appellant argued that the hall was used for running a clinic, which the respondent allegedly knew and acquiesced to. However, the High Court focused solely on the bona fide requirement for residential use, deeming it sufficient for eviction without examining the second ground of mis-user.

3. Bona Fide Requirement for Residential Use:
The High Court found that the respondent genuinely required the premises for residential use, rejecting the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority's findings. The respondent's evidence, supported by her son's testimony, indicated that the government quarters were insufficient for the family's needs. The High Court noted that the respondent had initiated eviction proceedings against both tenants concurrently, not just the appellant, demonstrating a genuine need for the entire house.

4. Change of User from Residential to Non-Residential:
The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had erred in their findings regarding the change of user. The appellant initially claimed the premises were taken for both residence and clinic use but later asserted it was solely for non-residential purposes. The High Court noted this shift in defense and emphasized that the lease deed, though unregistered, indicated the premises were let for residential purposes. The High Court also highlighted the statutory requirement under Section 11 of the Act, prohibiting conversion of residential buildings to non-residential use without written consent from the Rent Controller.

5. Applicability of Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the Act:
The appellant argued that the respondent could not seek eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) as the premises were deemed non-residential. The High Court dismissed this argument, noting that the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were flawed and not binding. The High Court held that the respondent's need for the premises for residential use was genuine, and the appellant's defense based on the non-residential status was untenable.

6. Applicability of the Second Proviso to Section 13(3)(a):
The appellant contended that the respondent could not seek eviction again on the ground of bona fide requirement after obtaining an earlier order against another tenant, Kuldeep Singh. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that eviction proceedings against both tenants were initiated concurrently, not sequentially. The High Court emphasized that the respondent's need for the entire house, including the hall, was justified, especially given the inconvenience and risk posed by the appellant's clinic operations.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment was upheld, dismissing the appellant's contentions. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant time to vacate the premises until January 31, 1987, subject to filing an undertaking. The High Court's findings were deemed justified, and the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were found to be based on erroneous assumptions and non-existent material.