Supreme Court of India
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIAversusC.K.S. RAO
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 784
- Decided
- 2 December 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A S ANAND
Holding
A certificate issued under Section 13A(l) is conclusive evidence and the High Court cannot go beyond it or re‑appreciate the Competent Authority’s findings; thus the High Court’s reversal was improper.
Summary
The appellant, Kanta Udharam Jagasia, claimed ownership of a flat and, as a Scientific Officer in BARC, sought eviction of her tenant under Section 13A(l)(A)(ii) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Competent Authority granted eviction based on a certificate confirming her scientific post and lack of alternative accommodation. The tenant appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 31F, which set aside the order, holding the certificate was not conclusive and that the appellant was not a genuine scientific officer. The Supreme Court held that the certificate is conclusive evidence under Section 13A(l)(2), the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by re‑appreciating evidence and questioning the certificate, and that a co‑owner may file an eviction petition without objection from other co‑owners. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Competent Authority’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can re‑appreciate evidence and question the validity of a certificate issued under Section 13A(l) when the statute declares it conclusive.
- Whether a co‑owner, in the absence of objection from other co‑owners, can maintain an eviction petition under the Act.
- Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 31F permits interference with the Competent Authority’s finding on the bona‑fide requirement.
- Scope and limitation of the High Court’s power of revision under Section 31F of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 13A(l)(2), s. 13A(l)(A)(ii), s. 31F
Subjects
evictionrent controlscientific officercertificate conclusiverevisional jurisdictionco‑owner rightsbona fide requirementSection 13ASection 31F
Judgment
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA A
v.
C.K.S. RAO
DECEMBER 2, 1997
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
Bombay Rents, Hotel alld Lodgillg House Rates Control Act, 1947:
Sections 13-Al(l)(A)(ii) alld 13-A(2).
Rent Colltrol and Eviction--Landlady was appoillted as Scielltific Of- C
fleer ill Bhabha Atomic Research Celltre as ce1tified by all Officer of the
Departmellt-As per records she was owner of a Flat ill occupatioll of a
tenallt-Evictioll of tenallt sought Oil groulld of bona fide requiremellt of
landlady-Conc/usive11ess of the Ce1tificate-Held : Court cannot go behind
the Certificate-Court also cannot further go into the question whether the D
lalldlady was holdillg a scielltific post or not, she beillg a medical doctor and
discharging duties as doctor.
Rent Colltrol alld Evictioll-Lalldlord--Co-owller-Evictioll peti-
tion---Maintainability of-Tenant paid rent to a co-owne1-Held; Landlord
can maintain eviction petition in the absence of any objection from other E
co-owners--Moreover, once tenant paid rent to such a person he cannot raise
objection in the eviction petition that such a person is not his landlord.
Section 31-F-Rent Control and Eviction--Revisional Jurisdiction of
High Cowt-Scope of-Certificate issued as per requirements of S.13- F
Al(J)(A)(ii)(b)--Conclusiveness of-Held: Revisional jurisdiction is
limited-High Court not justified in going into the co1rectness of the Certificcte
on basis of minor mistakes in spite of conclusiveness of Certificate under
S.13- A(2}-High Cowt not justified in rendering its own finding that it is a
colourable exercise of power-High Court also not justified in inteifering with G
the finding of Competent Authority regarding bona fide requirement of the
landlady, unless the finding is perverse or unreasonable.
Section 13-A-Rent Control and Eviction-Application for evic-
tion--Question of hardship-Held : Jn an application for eviction u/s 13-
Al ( 1)A(ii) the question of hardship of parties not relevant.. H
91
l
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A· The appellant-landlady was residing with her brother in a Flat
situated on the ground floor of a building of a housing society. The
appellant claimed to be the owner of a Flat No. 3 situated on the ground
floor of the same building, which she had let out to the respondent. Finding
that it was no longer possible to get on with her sister-in-law, the appellant
B preferred an application for possession of Flat No. 3 alleging that she
being a holder of a scientific post in the Department of Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (BARC) was entitled to invoke Section 13- Al(l)(A)(ii)
of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
She also enclosed necessary Certificate to support her claim that she was
holding a scientific post in BARC and that she had no other suitable
C premises for her residence in the local area where the suit premises was
situated. The appellant also claimed that her claim was bona fide and her
joint living with her brother's family was no longer possible for reasons
given in the application.
D The respondent resis_ted the application for eviction. It was alleged
in the written statement that the appellan,t was not the owner of the suit
flat; that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between them,
that she was not holding a post of Scientific Officer in BARC; that Flat
No. 1 on the ground floor was conveniently divided into Flat Nos. lA and
1B and the appellant was in possession of one of the flats and that,
E therefore, her claim was not bona fide.
In the light of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the
competent Authority held that the appellant had proved that she was the
landlady qua the respondent-tenant as defined in the Act; that she was
p holding a scientific post in BARC to enable her to invoke Section 13-
Al (l)(A)(ii) of the Act; that the Certificate produced by her was proved;
that she had no suitable accommodation and that her claim for possession
was a bona fide one. On those findings the Competent Authority passed
an order of eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit flat.
G The respondent-tenant preferred a revision petition before the High
Court under Section 31-F of the Act. The High Court held that merely
because BARC had chosen to style the appellant a "Scientific Officer", that
would not detract the jurisdiction of the Court from finding out whether
the appellant was, in fact a Scientific Officer to whom the benefit of the
H provision was to be extended. The High Court accepted the contention of
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA v. C.K.S. RAO 93
the respondent that though the Certificate certified that the appellant was A
holding the post of Scientific Ollicer, she being a medical doctor and
discharging the duties of a doctor, could not be treated as a Scientific
Ollicer and accordingly held that the appellant-landlady was not entitled
to the benefit of Section 13-Al of the Act despite issuance of the Certificate
and despite the conclusiveness of the facts stated in the Certificate. The B
High Court also found that that the Certifi'Cate had been issued in·
colourable exercise of power and the same was tainted with malafides and,
therefore, liable to be ignored. The High Court further ·analysed the
contents of the Certificate sentence by sentence and found that the facts
given in the Certificate were not correct and on that ground also the
Certificate deserved to be ignored totally. Consequently, the benefit of C
Section 13-Al of the Act could not be extended to the appellant.
The High court also analysed the evidence regarding the bona fide
requirement of the appellant-landlady and came to a conclusion that the
inter-se arrangement between the family members in respect of the build· D
ing though accepted by the Housing Society also found on re-appreciation
of facts that the appellant could continue to occupy the portion in her
possession conveniently and, therefore, she had not been able to prove that
she required the suit premises bona fide for her occupation. On these
findings, the High Court, reversing the order of the Competent Authority,
dismissed the application for eviction. Hence this appeal. E
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Section 31-F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947 show that the Legislature deviating from F
the normal procedure otherwise provided in the ACt by enabling the
aggrieved parties to approach the Appellate Court, has provided a limited
jurisdktiou to the. High Court agains_t the order of the Competent
Authority. Under this provision, the High·Court is not expected to go into
the matter as an appellate Authority re-appreciating the evidence, as has G
been done by the High court in the present case. The High Court has
considered the issue as if it was deciding the original suit. The Legislature
has expressly provided under Section 13·Al(2) of the Act that any Certifi·
cate granted under Section 13-Al(l) shall be conclusive evidence of the
facts stated therein. The question regarding the conclusive nature of
contents contained in the Certificate issued as required under Section H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R..
A 13-Al is no longer res integra. The High Court was not justified in finding
fault with the Certificate by pointing out minor mistakes viz., in not giving
the full details. The High Court was also not right in finding that the
Certificate wa~ not acceptable for the additional reason that it was issued
under colourable exercise of power and with a malafide intention. No such
B case was put forward or made out before the Competent Authority. By
introduction of Part HA in the Act the order of the Competent Authority
was to be final subject to revision by the High Court under Section 31- !<'.
This should have been borne in mind by the High Court while dealing with
the matter in hand, which the High Court failed to do.
[104-E-G; 105-G; 106-A; 107-D]
c Shivra'm Anand Shiroor v. Mrs. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, [1984]
1 sec 588, relied on.
Winifred Ross v. Ivy Fonseca, [1984] 1 SCC 288, referred to.
D 2. The High Court also was not justified in interfering with the
considered finding of the Competent Authority regarding the bona fide
requirement of the landlady on the basis of evidence given by her Aunt.
The High Court, forgetting that it had a limited revisional jurisdiction,
analysed the evidence and substituted its findings in place of the findings
of the Competent Authority. The findings arrived at by the Competent
E Authority on the basis of oral evidence cannot be said to be perverse or
even unreasonable requiring the High Court to reverse the same. It is well
settled that though another view is possible on re-appreciation of the
evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the
lower courts on that ground. [107-E-G]
F
3. A co-owner, in the absence of any objection from other co-owners,
can maintain a petition for eviction against a tenant. However, that ques-
tion does not strictly arise for consideration on the facts of this case as
the legal heirs had settled among themselves regarding allotment of dis-
tinct and different shares to each one of them, which was accepted by the
G Housing Society. The tenant was paying rents to the appellant. Though the
matter of hardship is not quite relevant when the application for eviction
is under Section 13-Al, the Competent Authority has also considered that
aspect. In the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in reversing
the finding of the Competent Authority and allowing the revision.
H [107-G-H; 108-D; G]
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA v. C.K.S. RAO [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 95
Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, [1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. Sunder A
Singh (dead) by LRs., [1989) 1 SCC 444, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5309 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1/4.2.91 of the Bombay High B
Court in C.R.A. No. 445 of 1990.
Harish Salve, C.K. Sasi and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellant.
R.S. Hegde and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The appellant-landlady, who was success-
ful before the Competent Authority, Konhn Division, Bombay, in getting
an order of eviction against the respondent-tenant but failed before the
High Court, has filed this appeal by special leave challenging the reversing D
decision of the High Court.
The appellant claiming to be the owner of Flat No. 3 situated in the
ground floor of building bearing Plot No. 42, the Sindhi Immigrants
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur Road, Bombay, preferred an E
application under Section 13Al(l)(A)(ii) of the Bombay Rents. Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act')
seeking eviction of the tenant (respondent herein) from the said premises.
According to the appellant, the plot bearing No. 42 was initially allotted in
favour of her mother, Smt. Navabai, wife of Udharam, by the Housing F
Society. Later on, Moti Ram, brother of the appellant, was accepted as a
member of the Housing society in place of Smt. Navabai. Still Later. i.e.,
some time in November, 1960, the appellant's father Udharam became a
member in place of Motiram. The said Motiram constructed the present
building consisting of ground, first and second floors in Plot bearing No.
42. On. 11.9.69. Udharam died leaving behind three sons and three G
daughters, including the appellant. On 23.9.69, a Deed of Declaration was
executed among the legal heirs of the deceased Udharam whereunder the
appellant and one of her brothers Hiranand, were allotted the gro·und
floor. The ground floor itself consisted of four flats. The Housing Society
by its Resolution dated 24.9.69 accepted the inter se arrangement as H
KANTA UDHARAMJAGASIA v. C.K.S.RAO [K. VENKATASWAMl,J.] 97
The respondent-tenant examined himself to substantiate the A
allegations made in his written statement. He also examined a Supervisor
in the Local Department of the Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd.,
Santacruz, to depose that the appellant had made an application for
transfer of the electric meter in Flat No. lA to her name. He also examined
a Ward Officer in the Chembur Ward of the Bombay Municipal B
Corporation to elicit that the whole property No. 42 stands in the name
Motiram Udharam .Tagasia. In addition to the above, he also examined his
son to speak about the details regarding Flat No. lA and 18.
In the light of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the
competent authority by an order dated 31.3.90 held that the appellant had C
proved that she was the landlady qua respondent- tenant as defined in the
Act; that she was holding a scientific post in BAR C to enable her to invoke
Section 13Al(l)(A)(ii) of the Act; that the Certificate produced by her was
proved; that she had no other suitable accommodation and that her claim
for possession was bona fide one. On those findings an order of eviction D
of the respondent-tenant from the suit flat was passed by the competent
Authority.
The tenant aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred a Revision
to the High Court under Section 31F of the Act. Before the High Court, E
it was contended on behalf of the respondent- tenant that the Certificate
originally enclosed along wit~ the application for eviction was not in order
and the Competent Authority ought not to have allowed the
applicant-landlady to substitute the Certificate issued by the competent
Authority during the pendency of the eviction petition. This ground did not
F
find favour with the High Court and the High Court after a lengthy
discussion on this issue, held that the Certificate produced during the
pendency of the trial would be sufficient compliance of the requirement
under Section 13Al of the Act. Accordingly the High Court rejected the
first contention.
G
It was then contented before the High Court that the second Certifi-
cate, even though issued by the Competent Authority, was issued mechani-
cally, arbitrarily and without application of mind and was, therefore, liable
to be ignored and consequently the order of eviction passed on the basis
of the Certificate was also liable to be set aside. In other words, the H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A contention of the tenant before the High Court was that though the
Certificate certifies that the landlady was holding a post of the Scientific
officer. She being a Medical Doctor and discharging the duties of a Doctor,
could not be treated as a Scientific Officer and .the certificate issued was,
therefore, not on proper appreciation of the term. This contention found
B favour with the High Court and the High Court held that merely because
the BAR C had chosen to style the applicant a "Scientific Officer", that
would not detract the jurisdiction of the Court from finding out whether
the applicant was, in fact, a Scientific officer and to whom the benefit of
the provision was to be extended. The High Court found that the applicant-
C landlady was not entitled to the benefit of Section 13Al of the Act despite
the issuance of the Certificate and despite the conclusiveness of the facts
stated in the Certificate. The High Court also found that the Certificate
had been issued in colourable exercise of power and the same was tainted
with malafides and, therefore, liable to be ignored. The High Court did not
D stop there and further analysed the contents of the Certificate sentence by
sentence and found that the facts given in the Certificate were not correct
and on that ground also, the Certificate deserved to be ignored totally.
Consequently, the benefit of Section 13Al of the Act could not be extended
to the applicant.
E
The High Court also considered the question of bona fide require-
ment and analysed the evidence, as if it was the Competent Authority, led
by the parties and came to a conclusion that the inter se arrangement
between the family members, though accepted by the Housing Society,
cannot be accepted and relied upon. The High Court also found on re-ap-
F preciation of facts that the applicant could continue to occupy the portion in
her possession conveniently and, therefore, she had not been able to prove
that she required the suit premises bona fide of her occupation.
On these findings, the High Court, reversing the order of the Com-
G petent Authority, dismissed the application for eviction.
Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
lant, submitted that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in
re-appreciating the evidence and failed to appreciate that the appellant was
H posted as a Scientific Officer as per the Presidential Order, which had been
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA v. C.KS. RAO [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 99
gazetted and it was not for the High Court to go further and investigate A
whether the appellant was holding a scientific post or not. Even though the
High court found that the Certificate was conclusive according to Section
13Al (l)(A)(b) it went wrong in going beyond the Certificate. He sub-
mitted that the purpose of introducing special provisions in the Act has
been successfully defeated by dragging the proceedings for nearly a B
decade. According to the learned counsel, the relationship of landlady and
tenant cannot be disputed as admittedly the tenant was paying rents to the
appellant as admitted by the respondent in his evidence, even otherwis'e,
the fact that appellant is a co-owner of the premises is beyond dispute and
as a co-owner she is entitled to file the application for eviction. In the
absence of other co-owners disputing her claim, it is not open to the tenant C
to challenge her title. In support of his contention that a co-owner can file
a petition for eviction the learned counsel placed reliance on two judg-
ments of this Court reported in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak & Ors., (1977] 2
SCC 814, and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors., (1989] 1
SCC 444. He also submitted that on a plain reading of Sections 13Al and D
31F the High Court ought not to have rejected the Certificate and analysed
the facts and evidence as if it was sitting in Appeal over the decision of the
Competent Authority. Broadly speaking the contents in the certificate
regarding the plot number and the name of the Society leave no doubt
about the facts given therein. In any case, the respondent-tenant is not
prejudiced by small mistakes appearing in the certificate which have been E
unduly magnified by the High Court instead of ignoring the same.
Contending contrary, Mr. R.S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-tenant, submitted that the High Court was right in coming
to the conclusion that the Certificate issued by the Competent Authority F
was without application of mind and it was open to the High .Court to go
into the correctness of the Certificate, notwithstanding that the Certificate
was conclusive in the light of Section 13A1(2) of the Act. He also submitted
that certain facts given in the Certificate regarding the ownership were also
not correct as found by the High Court and, therefore, the High Court was G
justified in rejecting the Certificate. According to Mr. Hedge, in the
absence of registered documents specifying the allotments inter se the heirs
of deceased Udharam, the claim of the appellant that she was the owner
of a specific flat cannot be accepted. and, therefore, the High Court was
right in holding that the arrangement accepted by the Housing Society
cannot be pressed into service. Learned counsel also wanted to raise the .H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A point rejected by the High Court, namely, that the competent Authority
ought not to have allowed the applicant to substitute the first Certificate
which was not issued by the Competent Authority, though the second one
was issued by the Competent Authority.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We are of the
B view that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in
interfering with the order of the Competent Authority without
appreciating the limitation imposed by the Act. The relevant por-
tion of Section 13Al(l)(A)(ii) and 2 reads as follows :
c "13Al. Members of armed forces of the Union, scientists or
their successor-in-interest entitled to recover possession of
premises required for their occupation. (1) notwithstanding any~
thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any contract.--
D (A) a landlord, who, --
(i) .............. :............................................... .
(ii) holds a scientific post in the Department of Atomic
Energy of the Central Government or in any of its aided
E institutions (hereinafter in this section referred to as "a scien-
tist") or was such a scientist and has retired as such (which
term shall include premature retirement) and one year has
not elapsed since his retirement on the date of making of the
application,
F
shall be entitled to recover from his tenant the possession of any
premises owned by him on the ground that such premises are bona
fide required by him for occupation by himself or by any member
of his family, by making an application for the purpose of recovery
of possession of the premises, to the Competent Authority; and
G the Competent Authority shall make an order of eviction on that
ground if --
(a) in the case of a landlord who is a member of the armed
forces of the Union, he produces a certificate signed by the
H authorised office to the effect that, --
KANTA UDHARAMJAGASIA v. C.KS. RAO [K. VENKATASWAMJ,J.) 101
(i) he is a member of the armed forces of the Union, or that A
he was such a member and has retired as such, and
(ii) he does not possess any other premises suitable for
residence in the local area where the premises are situated;
or
B
(b) in the case of a landlord who is scientist, he produces a
certificate signed by an officer of the Department of Atomic
Energy of, or above, the rank of Deputy Secretary to Government .
to the effect that -- ·
(i) he is presently holding a scientific post in the Department
c
of Atomic Energy or in any of its aided institutions specified
in the certificate or he was holding such post and has now
retired with effect from the date specified in the certificate;
(ii) he does not possess any other suitable residence (exclud- D
ing any residential accommodation provided by Government)
in the local area where the premises are situated.
(2) Any certificate granted under sub-section (1) shall be con-
clusive evidence of the facts stated there."
E
Section 31F reads as follows :
"31F. Order of Competent Authority to be non- appealable and
revision by High Court. (1) No appeal shall lie against an order
for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Com-
petent Authority in accordance with the procedure specified in F
Section 31E.
(2) The High Court may, at any time suo motu or on the
application of any person aggrieved, for the purpose of satisfying
itself that an order made in any case by the Competent Authority G
under Section 31E is according to law, call for the record of that
case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit:
Provided that, no powers of revision at the instance of person
aggrieved shall be exercised unless an application is presented
within ninety days of the date of the order sought to be revised." H
-
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A The extracts of relevant provisions given above are the provisions as
amended by the Bombay Rents (Amendment) Act, 1986. It is necessary in
this context to bear in mind the background which necessitated the said
amendment in the year 1986. Section 13Al itself was inserted into the Act
by the Maharashtra Amendment Act 52 of 1975. The said Section when
B introduced initially was made applicable to members of armed forces of.
Union and their widows only. Subsequently, by Maharashtra Amendment
Act 11 of 1977, Section 13A2 was inserted. This provision extended the
benefits to persons holding scientific posts in the Department_ of Atomic
Energy of the Central Government or in any of its aided Institutions and
C their widows. However, the procedure for application and appeal remained
the· same as applicable to the other landlords for similar relief. In the year
1986, a further amendment was brought by the Maharashtra Legislature by
combining Sections 13Al and 13A2 and substituting Section 13A2 enabling
landlords to recover possession of premises given on expiry of licence.
Another significant amendment introduced by the Amending Act 1986
D related to special provisions for recovery for possession by landlords such
as members of armed forces of the Union, scientists and their widows on
the ground that the premises are bona fide required for occupation by them
or by any member of their family. It was considered that the normal
procedure in the main Act will take time in getting a decree through the
E Court and the object of making special provisions (Sections 13Al and
13A2) cannot be achieved. Therefore, the legislature provided a special
machinery for summary disposal of the applications made by the landlords
coming under Sections 13Al and 13A2 for recovery of premises from the
tenants. Consequently, Part llA was introduced in the Act making suitable
F provisions for appointment of competent Authorities for the procedure to ,,.
be followed by them for giving finality to the orders made by the
· Competent Authority subject to only a revision by the High Court and
further barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
G It is also necessary lo extract the order of appointment of the
appellant as a scientific Officer, which reads as follows:
Bombay-400039, the 5 May 1977
No.5/9/77-BARC: The President is pleased to appoint the un-
H dermenlioned officer of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre of
KANfA UDHARAM JAGASIA v. C.K.S. RAO [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 103
this Department to the posts indicated under column 5· with effect A
from the dates indicated under column 5 against each, in an
officiating capacity until further orders :
SI. Name Permane Officiating as Now Date
No. nt post appointed
held if any as B
1 -- -- -- --
2. -- -- -- -- --
3. -- -- -- -- --
4. Dr. (Kum) Scientific Scientific 1.8.76 c
Kanta Officer/ Engr. officer/ (FN)
Udharam Grade SC Engr.
Jagasia Grade SD
_, 5. -- -- -- -- --
D
6. -- -- -- -- --
7. -- -- -- -- --
8. -- -- -- -- --
9. -- -- -- -- --
E
We shall now extract the Certificate, which is relevant for our pur-
pose, issued by the Competent Auth01ity, from the Department of Atomic
Energy which reads as follows :
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,
Bombay 400 039. F
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
No. 25/42/88/R July 22, 1988 G
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that :
(i) Dr. (Kum.) Kanta U. Jagasia, Scientific Officer, Grade SE. H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Medical Division is presently holding a "Scientific Post" in the scale
of pay of Rs. 3700-125-4700-150- 5000 in the Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre, Department of Atomic Energy, Government cif
India.
(ii) As per records, Dr. (Kum.) K.U. Jagasia, who is an owner
B
of accommodation at 42, Sindhi Society, Chembur, Bombay _400
071 does not possess any other residence in Bombay in her name.
This certificate is issued to Dr. (Kum.) Jagasia at her request
for initiating the eviction proceedings against her tenants and to
c get possession of her accommodation referred to in item (ii) above,
keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 13A2 of the
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
as amended from time to time.
D Sd/
(K. Narayanaswamy)
Deputy Secretary/Staff Relations Officer.
With this background, let us proceed further.
E
A look at Section 31F wi\\ show that the legislature deviating from
the normal procedure otherwise provided in the Act by enabling the
aggrieved parties to approach the Appellate Court has provided a limited
jurisdiction to the High Court against the order of the Competent
Authority. Under this provision, the High Court is not expected to go into
F the matter as an Appellate Authority reappreciating the evidence, as has
been done by the High Court in the present case. With respect, we may
say that the High Court has considered the issue as if it was deciding the
original suit. The legislature has expressly provided that any Certificate
granted under Sub-Section (1) of Section 13Al shall be conclusive evidence
G of the facts stated therein (vide Sub- section 2 extracted above).
Nevertheless, the High Court went beyond the Certificate and substituted
its own reasoning for not accepting the Certificate. First of all, the
Presidential Order appointing the appellant (supra) as a Scientific Officer
as notified in the Gazette was brought to the notice of the High Court and
H in spite of that the High Court found as follows :-
KANTAUDHARAMJAGASIA v. C.K.S.RAO[K. VENKATASWAMJ,J.) 105
"It is no doubt true that Section 13A1(2) does make the facts stated A
in the Certificate conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
However, when it is shown that the applicant, by virtue of the duties
that she is performing in the BARC, cannot be included in the
category of a Scientific Officer, it would be always open to a court
to consider whether the applicant an officer to whom the legisla- B
ture intended to confer the said benefit. Merely because of the
BARC, who are the employers of the applicant, have chosen to
style the applicant a Scientific Officer would not detract from the
power or the jurisdiction of the Court from finding out whether
the applicant is in fact a Scientific Officer to whom the benefit of
the said provision is to be extended. To cite an extreme example, C
to illustrate my point of view, in case BARC issue a certificate in
favour of a Peon employed in its Office that he is a Scientific
Officer would it on account of the conclusiveness which is given
to it by sub- sec. 2, come in the way of the Court to hold that he
is not a Scientific Officer. In my view, that cannot be the construe- D
tion that can legitimately be given to the said provision. This would
be so even if as has been pointed out by Shri Abhyankar that the
appointment of the applicant, as is seen from the aforesaid
Gazette, is made by the President of India."
We are unable either to appreciate the example giyen by the High E
Court or to accept the conclusion reached by the High Court. Likewise,
the High Court found fault with the Certificate in stating that the appellant
was "an owner of accommodation at 42 Sindhi Society, Chembur Road,
Bombay-400071. ", without appreciating that Flat No. 3, which is the suit
presmises, is within this plot No. 42 and the parties were not in doubt about F
the premises or about the Society whose name is given in the Certificate.
The High Court was not justified in finding fault with the Certificate by
pointing out minor mistakes viz. in not giving the full details. The High
Court was also not right in finding that the Certificate was not acceptable
for the additional reason that it was issued under colourable exercise of
power and with a malafide intention. We do not find that any such case G
was put forward or made out before the Competent Authority.
We have already noticed the special provisions made in the Act
under Section 13Al as well as under Part llA of the Act and the reason
for introducing the said provisions. In one sense the question regarding the H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A conclusive nature of contents contained in the Certificate issued as re-
quired under Section 13Al is no longer res integra. This Court in Shivram
Anand Shiroor v. Mrs. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik & Anr., [1984) 1 SCC
588 had occasion to consider the scope of Section 13Al as introduced in
the year 1975 before the same was amended in 1977 and 1986. However,
as regards the conclusiveness of the Certificate there is no change in the
B
Section. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for a Bench of three Judges, while
repelling a contention that the Bombay Rent Act is a welfare legislation
designed among other matters, to protect tenants from harassment and
unreasonable eviction by landlords and it should, therefore, be interpreted
in a broad and liberal spirit so as to further and not to constrain the object
C of the Act, observed as follows :-
"Notwithstanding the expressed legislative bias in favour of the
tenant, the Legislature itself made a serious departure from the
general rule so as to lean in favour of landlords who are or were
D members of the armed services, and who because of the exigencies
of their service were not able to occupy their own premises during
the course of their service. Section 13-Al was enacted, relaxing
the rigour of Section 13 in favour of a landlord who is or was a
member of the armed forces. It is now provided that if he produces
a certificate in the manner prescribed it shall be taken as estab-
E lished, without further proof that be is presently a member of the
armed forces of the Union or that he was such member and is now
a retired ex- servicemen and that he does not possess any other
suitable residence in the local area where he or any member of his
family can reside. All that he has to further prove is that he bona
F fide requires the premises for occupation by himself or any member
of his family. The certificate is conclusive proof that he does not
possess any suitable residence in the local area, but not that he
bona fide requires the same for occupation by himself or any
member of his family. There may be cases where he does not
possess any other suitable residence in the local area and yet he
G does not bona fide require the premises for occupation by himself
or any me1,1ber of his family, being comfortably settled elsewhere
with no need or pressure to move. But as soon as he establishes
that he bona fide r~q uires the premises for occupation for his
family, he is entitled to recover possession and does not have to
H further prove that greater hardship would be caused to him than
KANTA UDHARAM JAGASIA v. C.K.S. RAO [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 107
to the tenant if a decree for possession is not granted. It is of A
course, implicit that the person producing the certificate is the
landlord. It is further implicit that the person mentioned in the
certificate presently or previously a member of the armed forces
was at a simultaneous point of time both landlord and member .of
the armed forces.
B
The Bench has noticed an earlier decision on this provision, namely
Winifred Ross V. Ivy Fonseca, (1984] 1 sec 288.
The above observations on the conclusive nature of the Certificate
supports the view taken by us in this case. Further, it must be remembered C
that when the three-Judge Bench considered the case, Part IIA was not
introduced and, therefore, against the order of the Rent Controller an
appeal was provided and further revision under Article 227 of the Con-
stitution of India was available to the aggrieved parties. Now, by introduc-
tion of Part IIA the order of the Competent Authority was to be final D
subject to revision by the High Court under Section 31F. This should have
been borne in mind by the High Court while dealing with the matter in
hand, which the High Court failed to do.
The High Court also was not justified in interfering with the con-
sidered finding of the Competent Authority regarding the bona fide re- E
quirement of the landlady on the basis of evidence given by her Aunt. The
High Court, forgetting that it had a limited revisional jurisdiction, analysed
the evidence and substituted its findings in place of the findings of the
Competent Authority. On a perusal of the evidence, we find that the
findings arrived at by the Competent Authority on the basis of oral F
evidence cannot be said to be perverse or even unreasonable requiring the
High Court to reverse the same. It is well settled that though another view
is possibk on re- appreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may
not interfere with the findings of the lower courts on that ground. We do
not think it is necessary to reiterate that a co-owner, in the absence of any
objection from other co-owners, can maintain a petition for eviction against G
a tenant as it was not seriously disputed before us. We find that that
question does not strictly arise for consideration on the facts of this case
as the legal heirs had settled among themselves regarding allotment of
distinct and different shares to each one of them, which was accepted by
the Housing Society. We have also seen that the tenant was paying rents H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A to the appellant. The Competent Authority on this aspect has observed as
follows :-
"Apart from the above evidence, the applicant's evidence shows
that after 31.1.1988 the opponent's son Chetan used to pay rent by
cheque on behalf of his father drawn in favour of the applicant.
B The applicant has issued rent receipts to him and she has produced
the counterfoils of rent receipts from February 1988 onwards (Ex.
A3). The reverse of the counterfoils bear the signature of the
opponent's son Chetan. The opponent has produced the rent
receipt (Ex.R-1). This Evidence establishes the fact that the op-
c ponent has become the contractual tenant of the applicant after
31.1.1988."
Though the matter of hardship is not quite relevant when the applica-
tion for eviction is under Section 13Al, the Competent Authority has also
Considered that aspect and found as follows :
D
"Coming to the third contention of Mr. Murthy regarding hardship,
the question of hardship is irrelevant for the purpose of sec. 13Al
of the Rent Act. Apart from this, the evidence on record reveals
that the opponent has other accommodation at his disposal. The
opponent's son Dinesh has constructed a bungalow in Mysore
E
Colony at Chembur, Bombay. The opponent is also presumed to
be residing with his son Subanna in the premises of Maharashtra
Housing Board, Kurla, to avail himself of medical facilities avail-
able to him by virtue of his son Subanna being in employment of
B.A.R.C. The third contenlion raised by Mr. Murthy, therefore, is
F not valid."
In the circumstances, we arc of the view that the High Court was not
justified in reversing the finding of the Competent Authority and allowing
the revision.
G In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed, the order of the
High Court is set aside and that of the competent Authority is restored.
There will be no. order as to costs.
Y.S.S. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "eviction"Sign in to search