Holding

The High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent factual findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority; revisional courts must not supplant such findings when supported by evidence.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant since 1982, faced an eviction petition filed by the landlady under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, on the grounds of her bonafide need for the premises and alleged rent default. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the eviction, finding no rent default and concluding that the landlady, who owned two houses in Hyderabad and lived there with her family, had not proved a genuine need for the Vijayawada premises. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside those findings, holding that the landlady’s lack of a residence in Vijayawada made her need bonafide. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in re‑appreciating the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that revisional courts must not supplant findings supported by the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, restored the decisions of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, and rejected the eviction petition.

Issues considered

When can a High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, re‑appreciate factual findings of lower tribunals in eviction matters under the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act?
Whether the landlady proved a bonafide need for the premises to justify eviction.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(2)(i), s. 10(3)(a)(i)(a)

Subjects

evictionbonafide needrevisional jurisdictionrent controllandlord-tenantfactual findingsSupreme Court of India

Judgment

N. ESWARI v. K.SWARAJYA LAKSHMI 501

- )-
of 70 years without there being anyone to look after her. A
This finding of fact arrived at by the RentController and
the Appellate Authority, cannot be said to be perverse and
arbitrary. The High Court was not justified in interfering
with such concurrent finding of fact in the exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction and come to a different finding on B
the question of bonafide need of the landlady/respondent.
The only ground on which the High Court had set aside
_._ the concurrent orders of the courts below is that since
the landlady was not having any other residential house
at Vijayawada where she was planning to settle, it must c
be held that the requirement was bonafide. According to
the High Court, the landlady/respondent was the best
judge for her residential requirement and she can choose
any place where she can settle down for various reasons.
It is an admitted position that the landlady, who is D
-"""' permanently residing in Hyderabad with her family
consis.ting of a son and two daughters and she has got
two houses there, only because she has expressed her
desire to. stay at this old age of 70 years in the tenanted
premises, it cannot be said that the requirement of the
landlady has been proved to be genuine. [Paras 9, 11, 12, E
13 and 14] [503-G-H; 504-A; 505-A-F; 506-B-D]
t
Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. vs. Mis S. Chokesiri and Co.
1989 (1) sec 19, relied on.
F
Case Law Reference:
1989 (1) sec 19 Relied on Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppealNo. 6261
of 2009. G
,..... ~

From the· Judgment & Order dated 25.11.2008 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil
Revision Petition No. 4311 of 2006.

H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

(
A Prabha Swami for the Appellant. ->f
...

Om Prakash Mishra, KRL Sarma, Ghan Shyam Vasisht
for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. We are invited in this appeal to decide whether the High
;l
Court was justified, in the facts and circumstances of the
c present case in its revisional jurisdiction, in re-appreciating the
facts and setting aside th~ order of the Rent Controller,
Vijayawada dated 31st of October, 2001 and the order of the
Appellate Authority, Vijayawada dated 21st of December,
2005.
""
D 3. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering ~
with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts
below.

4. The appellant is a tenant in respect of the premises in
E question since 1982. In or about the year 2000, the landlady/
respondent herein filed an application for eviction of the tenant/
appellant under Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) read with Section 10(2)(i)
of AP. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,· 1960
(in short, "the Act") before the Rent Controller on the ground that
F .the landlady/respondent bonafide required the premises in
question and also the tenanVappellant was a willful defaulter in
payment of rent.
5. Parties adduced evidence and finally, the Rent
Controller, Vijayawada, by its final order dated 31st of October,
G 2001, rejected the eviction petition inter alia holding that the
... ~

landlady/respondent had failed to prove that the tenant/appellant
was a defaulter in payment of rent and in so far as the bonafide
need of the premises in question was concerned, it was held
that the landlady/respondent had two houses at Hyderabad. and
H the landlady was residing in Vijayawada with her family
N. ESWARI v. K.SWARAJYA LAKSHMI 503
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

..... .,._ members consisting of one son and two daughters for the last A
31 years.

6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was carried to the
Appellate Authority, namely, Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Appellate Authority, Vijayawada. The Appellate Authority also
B
affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada and
dismissed the appeal. A Civil Revision Petition was then filed
in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by the
landlady/respondent against the aforesaid concurrent orders of
rejection of the eviction petition and by the impugned order, the
High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of rejection and c
directed the eviction of the tenant/appellant.

•'....
~
'
_....
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the High
Court, this Special Leave Petition has been filed at the instance
of the tenant/appellant, which on grant of leave, was heard in D
presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. So far as the ground of willful default was concerned,
both .the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held
that there was no willful default in payment of rent for the months
of December, 1998 and January, 1999. So far as this ground
E
was concerned, the High Court also observed that the learned
.- • counsel for the landlady/respondent, not having urged the said
ground i.e. willful default in payment of rent, the findings of the
two Courts below must be affirmed. So far as the case of
bonafide requirement of the landlady/respondent was F
concerned, the High Court has, by the impugned order, set
aside the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts
• below.

"'' 9. In our view, the High Court was not justified in the present
... G
+- case to interfere with the concurrent orders of the Courts below
rejecting the plea of bonafide requirement of the landlady/
respondent. The only ground on which the High Court had set
aside the concurrent orders of the Courts below is that since
the husband of the landlady had retired from service in 1982 H

-
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and was residing at Hyderabad and she was not having any -<I
....
other residential house at Vijayawada where she was planning
to settle, it must .be held that the requirement was bonafide.

10. In Paragraph 16 of the impugned Judgment, the High
Court has given the reasons for setting aside the concurrent
B orders of rejection of the eviction petition. We feel it proper in
this case to reproduce the said part of the impugned order,
which runs as under:-

"16. The evidence of P.W. 1 would go to show that he was
c retired froni service in 1982, that at present he is residing
at Hyderabad; that he was not having any other residential
house at Vijayawada and he is planning to settle at
Vijayawada. When a suggestion was given to the effect
, that with a view to evict the tenant so that he would get
o· higher rent, the present petition was filed, but the same ,,..
)....
was denied. R W. 1, who is no other than the tenant stated
that she is a tenant right from 1986 and she never
committed any default in payment of i ~nts. Having come
to the Court, it is for the petitioner to establish that the
E premises in question is required for bona fide purpose.
·. P~w. 1 admitted that he has got two own houses at
· Hyderabad and at present the landlady is staying with her
childre11 at Hyderabad, but at the same time, admittedly, ~ -·
the landlady is not having any residential premises at
Hyderabad. She is aged about 70years. Since the children
F
··of landlady are residing at Hyderabad, it cannot be said
that there would be no one to look after her. Landlady is
the best judge for his residential requirement. It is for the
landlady to look after herself at that age. She can chose
any place where she wanted to settle down for variety of
G reasons."
"
..
11. On a bare perusal of these findings of the High Court,
it appears that PW1 has categorically admitted that he had got
two houses of his own at Hyderabad and at present, the
H landladYfrespondent is staying with her children at Hyderabad

-
N. ESWARI v. K.SWARAJYA LAKSHMI 505
[TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]

A
" ~ but since she has no residential house at Vijayawada and her
age is about 70 years, she wants to settle herself in Vijayawada
in the disputed premises. According to the High Court, the
landlady/respondent was the best judge for her residential
requirement and she can choose any place where she can
settle down for various reasons. In view of the above, the High B
Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the Courts below
and granted eviction of the appellant.
,-4; 12. We are unable to accept these findings of the High
Court made in the impugned order. It is an admitted position
that the landlady, who is permanently residing in Hyderabad with
c
her family consisting of a son and two daughters and she has
got two houses there, only because she has expressed her
desire to stay at this old age of 70 years in the tenanted
premises, it cannot be said that the requirement of the landlady
-- .... has been proved to be genuine.
13. As noted hereinearlier, the Rent Controller, Vijayawada
D

and the Appellate Authority concurrently held 'on facts on proper
appreciation of evidence on record that the landlady/respondent
had failed to prove that she required the premises in question E
for her bonafide need. This concurrent finding of fact was upset
~
by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. In our view, the
High Court was not justified in interfering with such concurrent
finding of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and
come to a different finding on the question of bonafide need of F
the landlady/respondent. In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Another vs.
Mis S. Chokesiri and Co. 1989 (1) SCC 19, this Court
considered this aspect of the matter and at Page 43, has dealt
with the aforesaid question elaborately -

"When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts-below G
-- •
are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional
Court must, indeed, be reluctant to embark upon an
independent re-assessment of
the evidence and to
supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence
on record. admitted of .and supported the one reached by H

...
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) s.c:R.

A the Courts-below. Wjth respect to the High Court, we are +. ~

afraid, the exercise made by it in its revisional jurisdiction
incurs the criticism that the concurrent-finding of fact of the .
~

.· Courts-below could not be dealt and supplante_d by a
different finding arrived at on an independent re-
B assessment of evidence as was done in this case".

14. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had
considered the entire materials on record and the arguments
adduced by the parties and came to a finding that the
requirement of the landlady/respondent was not genuine and
c there was no need to leave her permanent house at
Hyderabad, where she has been living, to come over to
Vijayawada to stay alone at the age of 70 years without there
being anyone to .look after her. This finding of fact arrived at by
the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, in our view,
D cannot be said to be perverse and arbitrary. ..._ ~

15. That being the position, we are of the view that it was
not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its revisonal
jurisdiction, to interfer~ ·:•it:1 the concurrent findings of fact of
E the Rent Controller as well as of the Appellate Authority.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set
aside and that of Rent Controller, Vijayawada and the Appellate J. --
Authority are restored.

F · 17. The application for eviction filed by the respondent
stands rejected. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no --:
order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

-