1999 (8) TMI 1001 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional error by the High Court
2. Bona fide need of the landlord
3. Availability of alternative accommodation
4. Admission of additional evidence by the High Court

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Error by the High Court:
The appellant argued that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by reversing the findings of facts recorded by the Additional Rent Controller. The High Court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The High Court's role is to ensure that the order made by the Controller is "according to law," which allows for limited re-appraisal of evidence to ascertain if the Controller's conclusion was unreasonable or lacked objectivity. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's intervention was justified as the Rent Controller's order was not according to law, thereby upholding the High Court's decision.

2. Bona Fide Need of the Landlord:
The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide need for additional accommodation. The Additional Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, citing that the landlord's need was not bona fide, especially after the deaths of his wife and mother-in-law. However, the High Court found that the landlord's need was genuine, sincere, and honest, considering the size of his family and professional requirements. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the landlord's need was natural and consistent with a decent standard of living, and not driven by any ulterior motive.

3. Availability of Alternative Accommodation:
The availability of an alternative accommodation at Sarvodya Enclave was contested. The Additional Rent Controller noted that the Sarvodya Enclave property, if available, would suffice for the landlord's needs. However, the High Court found that this property was not reasonably suitable for the landlord's requirements, given its distance and the landlord's established life in Defence Colony. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Sarvodya Enclave property was not relevant to the landlord's bona fide need, especially as it was in the name of his deceased wife and later passed to his sons.

4. Admission of Additional Evidence by the High Court:
The High Court considered a will and other documents submitted by the landlord after the death of his wife, which were not formally admitted in evidence. The tenant argued this was a jurisdictional irregularity. The Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural lapse but concluded that even without these documents, the High Court's finding of bona fide need was justified based on the existing record. The High Court's decision to reverse the Rent Controller's order was upheld as it was the only reasonable conclusion from the available material.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, granting the tenant six months to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking to deliver vacant possession and continue paying rent during this period. The High Court's decision to evict the tenant was upheld, affirming the landlord's bona fide need for the premises.