Holding

A revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings of fact of the lower forums unless those findings suffer an inherent defect, are based on inadmissible or irrelevant material, or are perverse; therefore, the High Court’s setting aside of the eviction order was erroneous.

Summary

Vallampati Kalavathi, the landlady, filed an eviction suit against tenant Haji Ismail under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging non‑payment of rent and a bona‑fide requirement to house her children for higher education. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on both grounds; the Appellate Authority affirmed the eviction only on the bona‑fide requirement ground. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, on revision under Section 22, set aside the eviction order, relying on subsequent developments that the son had completed his MBBS and the daughter was married. The Supreme Court held that such subsequent developments are not automatically relevant and that a revisional court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are defective, based on inadmissible material, or perverse. Consequently, the High Court’s interference was improper, the appeal was allowed, and the original eviction order was restored.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, exercising revisional power under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, can set aside concurrent findings of fact of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority on the ground of subsequent developments.
Whether subsequent factual developments, not placed on record before the lower forums, are relevant to the determination of a bona‑fide requirement for eviction.
The scope and limits of the revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 22 – i.e., whether it extends to re‑evaluating factual findings or is confined to legality, regularity, and propriety.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10, s. 15, s. 20, s. 22

Subjects

evictionrent controlbona fide requirementrevisional jurisdictionSection 22subsequent developmentsconcurrent findings of factAndhra Pradesh Buildings Act

Judgment

VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI A
v.
HAJllSMAIL

MARCH 23, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVRAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction :
Andhra Pradesh Building (uase, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
I•: •

S. JO-Eviction suit filed on grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent
c
and bona fide requirement-Rent Controller orrkred eviction on both the
grounds-Appellate Authority confined orrhr only on the ground of bonafide
requirement-High Court reversed orrhrof eviction considering certain subse-
quent developments-On appeal Held : All subsequent developments are not
necessarily relevant for adjudication and only those which can tum the balance D
in the case should be considered-Controversy should be decided wiih refer-
ence to the pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on recon:t-High
Court, while rushing to the conclusion, wrongly interfered with the orrhr of
eviction.
Section 22-Revisional power of High Court-Expressions "legality", E
"regularity" or "propriety" are wider than mere correction ofjurisdictional
error-Revisional power, however, cannot be exercised to upset concurrent
findings offact recorrkd-lnteiference allowed only when it is shown that such
findings suffer from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or
irrelevant materials or are perverse. F
Appellant landlady filed an eviction suit against the respondent un-
der Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1960 on the grounds of non-payment or arrears or rent and
that there was a bona fule requirement to settle with her children who were ·
to complete their higher education. Rent Controller ordered eviction on G
both the grounds. However, the Appellate Authority confirmed the same
only on the ground of bona fide requirement. High Court reversed the
order considering certain subsequent developments. Hence this appeal.
Appellant contended that the High Court could not disturb the con-
current findings or fact under the limited scope of Section 22 or the Act; H
691
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 2 S.C.R.
A and that the subsequent development averred by the respondent. tenant in
the High Court were not supported by any material on record.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. When litigation lingers on for years certain factual devel-
B opments are bound to take place, which are not necessarily relevant for
adjudication. In proceedings for eviction of the tenant on the ground of
personal requirement sometimes subsequent developments may be rel·
evant and are looked into for enabling the authorities to make a fair and
proper adjudication of the controversy. While taking note of subsequent
developments they should keep in mind whether such material is relevant
c and can turn the balance in the case. The controversy should be decided
with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on
record. In the present case, the husband of the landlady stated in his
deposition that their daughter was living with her husband and their son
was studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam, which was not a
D subsequent development and was considered by the Rent Controller and
the Appellate Authority. (696-C-FJ

2. The language of the Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 suggests, the revisional power
vested in the High Court is to be used for the purpose of satisfying itself as
E to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and if
satisfied that the order/orders suffer any such vice i! may pass such order
in reference to the proceeding as it thinks Cit. The expressions 'legality'
'regularity' or 'propriety' are undoubtedly wider than mere correction of
jurisdictional error. But even such revisional power cannot be exercised to
F upset the concurreni findings of fact recorded by the Forums below merely
on ihe ground that it is inclined to take a different view on the materials on
record. The concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered with in
revision, as for such interference, it has to be shown that the findings
recorded by the Forums below suffer from any inherent defect or are
based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no
G
reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials. [697-B-D)

3. The High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of the Fo-
rums below merely taking note of the fact that the son of the landlady was
studying in 3rd year Medicine at Visakhapatnam and might have com·
H pleted his MBBS Course in the meanwhile and that her daughter, after
VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI v. HAIT ISMAIL [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J .] 693
marriage, is living with her husband. It appears to have rushed to the A
conclusion that the requirement of the landlady for providing facility for
higher education to her children no longer subsists and on that ground set
aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The High
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case was not right in interfer-
ing with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed
B
by the Appellate Authority. (695-G-H; 696-A-B; 697-D·E]

CIVIL APPELLIITE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2309 of 2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.99. of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3126 of 1997.
c
M.N. Rao, Ajeet and Y. Raja Gopala Rao for the Appellant.

Avadh Bihari Rohtagi, Anil Hooda and Harinder Mohan Singh for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.

The appellant Vallarnpati Kalavathi is the lanC:lady of the building
bearing door No.2-11-38-A of Vulli Street, Vizianagaram, in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and the respondent Haji Ismail is the tenant of the said E
premises.

The appellant filed the petition under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act')
seeking eviction of the tenant on two grounds: (I) that the tenant has
committed default to pay or tender the rent in respect of the said building F
in time and (2) that the landlady requires the premises for shifting her
residence to Vizianagararn to educate her children, a son and a daughter, who
are to join courses there for their higher education. The tenant refuted the
allegations made by the landlady on both the grounds. He denied that the
landlady has any bona fide requirement for occupying the premises. G

The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence placed on the
record, held in favour of the landlady and ordered eviction of the tenant on
both the grounds vide the order dated 15.4.88 in R.C.C. No.9/82. On appeal,
the Rent Control Appellate Authority on independent appraisal of the
evidence in the case, set aside the finding of the rent controller regarding H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A default in payment/tender of the rent but confirmed the finding regarding
bona fide requirement of the landlady and maintained the order of
eviction passed by the rent controller vide the order dated 11.6.97 in RCA
No.15/88.

The tenant filed the civil writ petition No.3126/97 in the High Court
B of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22 of the Act challenging the order of the
Appellate Authority. A single Judge of the High Court by order dated
25.1.1999 interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority that the landlady required the premises
bona fide for her occupation, set aside the order passed by the Appellate
c Authority confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.
The said judgment/order is under challenge in this appeal filed by special
leave.
1
In the order i)Msed on 26.11.1999 this Court took note of the contention
raised by the senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent
D who was the petitioner in the High Court had not filed any additional affidavit
showing the subsequent events and that the learned Judge's observation at
page 4 of the judgment appears to have been based on the basis of available
record before the Courts below and according to the learned counsel there
is nothing on record to show that after getting the MBBS degree her son
was· working elsewi£re. In the said order it was also noted that the case of
E
the landlady on evidence was that her son wanted to establish his practice
in the premises in question. On the above statement notice was issued in the
case.

The main thrust of the arguments of the counsel for the appellant was
F that the High Court committed error in disturbing the concurrent findings of
''
fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the
landlady bona fide required the house for her occupation for the purpose of
educating her children at Vizianagararn. The learned counsel further
contended that the so called subsequent developments in the case on the basis
of which the High Court has disturbed the concurrent findings of fact, are
G that the daughter of the landlady has been given in marriage and the son of
the landlady has completed his education are not based on any material on
record. According to the learned ·counsel for the appellant no application was
filed to bring on record any additional material relating to the aforementioned
matters before the Rent Controller or even before the Appellate Authority.
H The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the contention that it was
VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI v. HAil ISMAIL [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J .) 695
not open to the High Court to disturb the concurrent findings of facts A
recorded by the forums within limited scope of revisional jurisdictional vested
in it nnder Section 22 of the Act.

The learned connsel appearing for the respondent supported the judg-
ment/order of the High Court.
B
In the year 1982 when the landlady filed the petition for eviction of
the tenant which was registered as RCC No.9/1982 her son had completed
intermediate course and her daughter was studying in the intermediate class.
She had pleaded that she and her family members intend to shift residence
from Parvatipurarn to Vizianagararn with a view to provide better facilities c
for higher education to the children. Since there was delay in getting the
possession of the house the landlady had to send her son to Anakapalli for
studying B.Sc. As the litigation lingered on, her son completed the B.Sc.
course and joined MBBS course at Visakhapatnarn and the marriage of the
daughter was performed. As noted earlier, both the Rent Controller and the
D
Appellate Authority had accepted the case of bona fide requirement of the
landlady of the premises for residential purpose. Referring to the deposition
of the husband of the landlady who was examined as PW! the Appellate
Authority took note of the fact that the son was studying in 3rd year Medicine
in Visakhapatnarn and the daughter was married and living with her husband.
The witness further stated that he and his wife (landlady) intend to reside in E
the building in question and their son intends to set up medical practice at
Vizianagararn and he (witness) also intends to carry on business there. The
Appellate Authority also took note of the fact that the tenant was not using
the premises in question which is a residential building for residential purpose
but is using it for running cloth business; that he resides in another building F
owned by him. On appreciation of the evidence led by both the parties the
Appellate Authority held that the personal requirement of the house as
pleaded by the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Accordingly, the Appellate
Authurity confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on
the gronnd of personal requirement of the landlady.
G
The High Court, as appears from the discussions in the Judgment, has
set aside the concurrent findings of the Forums below merely taking note of.
the fact that the son of the landlady was studying in 3rd year Medicine at
Visakhapatnarn and might have completed his MBBS Course in the mean-
while and that her daughter, after marriage, is living with her husband. H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200!] 2 S.C.R.
A Talcing note of these facts the High Court appears to have rushed to
the conclusion that the requirement of the landlady for providing facility for
higher education to her children no longer subsists and on that ground set
aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

The question is since one of the two children of the landlady, the
B daughter, has left her parental home for her matrimonial home and the son
is dne to complete the MBBS course, can it be said that the need as pleaded
m the petition no longer subsists? Connected with it is the question whether
the High Court in revision could interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
taking a different view on the materials which were considered by the Forums
c below for accepting the case of the landlady? When the litigation lingers on
' for years certain factual developments are bound to take place. All such
developments are not necessarily relevant for adjudication of the case. No
doubt, in proceeding for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal
requirement of the landlord sometime subsequent developments may be
. relevant to be looked into for enabling the authorities to make a fair and
D proper adjudication of the controversy. While taking note of subsequent
developments the Authorities/Courts should keep in mind whether such
material is relevant and can turn the balance in the case, the controversy
should be decided with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the
findings placed on record. In the present case, as noted earlier, the husband
E of the landlady stated in his deposition that their daughter, after marriage, was
living with her husband and their son was studying in 3rd year Medicine at
Visakhapatnam. Therefore, this was not a subsequent development which was
not considered by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. The finding
recorded by the High Court in the revisional proceeding amounts to taking
a view different from those recorded by the Forums below on the evidence
F available on the record. Was this permissible within the purview of the
revisional power vested in the High Court under Section 22 of the Act? The
said Section reads as follows:

"22. Revision:- (!)The High Court may, at any time, on the applica-
G tion of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating
to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the
Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority
on appeal under Section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the legality, regularity orof propriety of such orderor proceeding, and
may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
H
VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI ~ HAJJ ISMAIL [D.P. MOHAPATRA, J .] 697
~ (2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before lhe High Court A
~.
under sub-section (1), shall be in its discretion."

As lhe language of lhe Section suggests, lhe revisional power vested
in lhe High Court is to be used for lhe purpose of satisfying itself as to lhe
legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and if satisfied
lhat the order/orders suffer any such vice lhe High Court may pass such order B
in reference to lhe proceeding as it lhinks fit. The expression 'legality',
'regularity' or 'propriety' are undoubtedly wider lhan mere correction of
jurisdictional error. But even such revisional power cannot be exercised to
upset lhe concurrent findings of fact recorded by lhe Forums below merely
on the ground lhat the High Court is inclined to take a different view on the c
materials on record in the case. We should not be understood to be saying
that the concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered with in
revision. For such interference it has to be shown that lhe findings recorded
by lhe Forums below suffer from any inherent defect or are based on
inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no reasonable
person will come to such conclusion on !he materials. D

On the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to
hold lhat the case in hand is not such a case. It follows that the High Court
was not right in interfering with the order of eviction passed by the Rent
_,, Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
y E
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of lhe High Court
under challenge is set aside and the Judgment/order passed by lhe Rent
Controller, at Vizianagararn dated 15.4.1988 which was confirmed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge at Vizianagararn by
order dJ.ted 11.6.1997 is restored. There will, however, be no order for co8ts. F
-1. A.Q . Appeal allowed.

•