January 1'1 v. JIWAN LAL

Held, that the investigation by the Rent Controller can not be confined only intentinn in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intf'ntion must be hone~tJy l·eld in relation to the surrounding- circum stances, otherwise the very purpo~e of tlie Rent Restriction Act would be defeated. ff the landlords wt:re to come forward and to get tenants turnt"d ·out, on the bare nlea that they want to recon'ltfLICt the .house witho,1t first establishing, that the pl~a that the is bona fide with re~ard to all circurnst;:ince~, viz. h,"luSes need rtconstruct.ion or that they have the meari.s to reconstruct them. Held, further, that wheo the Tribunals have examined the facts after instructing them!lelves correctly about law, a \Vith rhe deci C:turt of Revision should be slow to interf("'re sioh, thus reached, unle9'.i it demonstrates by its own decision the impropriely of the order which it seeks to revise. Under s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric tion Act, 19t9, the powers of the High Court do not include 1962 Nda Ram v. Jiw.n1 Lt.I lliJayat•lfoh J. 624 SUPREME COURT REPORnl [1962) SUPP. power!\ to pt"rverse a conrurrrnt finding witliout showinsr h.ow tho~e finrfin_~" arl"' l"'rroneous and without giving any substantial reason(. for its findin~. H2lfl, also, that a case cannot ht! an authoritv on a pair.t of fart an cl rach c•;• has to he examintd in the light of the circufTlstanct-s t-xisting. Moti r.frrred to. 11a'11 v. Suroj Bhan, (1960] 2 S. C. R,. 896, Civrr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No, 646 of i 961. Appeal by enPcial lPBve from the jud~ent and dPere11 dMPd A nril 7, 1961. of thn Punj!lb Hi~h C'llut in Clivil Revision No. 31'>4 of 1959. Go'f!Gl Singh, for the appPlla.tes. Rishan Narain and Naunit lal, for the respon drnt No. I. Hlfl2 . . fammrv, 17.-The Judgment of the Court was dPlivered bv HmAYA'l'TTT.LAH, J.-Thi~ is nn appral by special loav<' ag:ainat. an orrl<>r of tho High Court of Punj'lb at Cha.nrlhra.rh, rlBt<'d April 7, 1961. The apnellant.s a.ro five tenants, who have been evictecl from certain shops and chobaras in the town of Patia.fa, on t hA a11plication of the first rt'sponrlcnt, thti landlord. The application by the landlord was made in ,Jnne, 1957, under s. 13 of the P11.ti:da and E'l.st. Punjab StatAs Union Urban R<'nt lfostri1·tion Ordinance, 20(}6 BK (No. VIII of :?OOfi BK). The grounds urgt•rl by the landlord wcrr (•\) nen.pavment of rent b.v the tC'nants, (b) non pnym••nt of houeo tax by tho t<>nants and (cl that the shops WC're in a state of g-ri-a.t disrepair iincl W<>re clilapidatcd, and the landlord wished to rebuild tlwrn aftn dismantling the structun•s. The lanrllorrl :l\·orr<'rl that he had obtained sanction of the i\lnnicipal Committ<'e to a propo; rd plan of con Rtrnction, awl nc1•um11lat<'<I somo huilrling material before making the application. The tl'nants rc>'istrd the application. The Rc>nt C•.mtrollcr fram<·q i's111·s 1elating to the three 1962 Jveta Rom v, Jiwan Lal Hidq.vatuituh J. 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 625 grounds; bnt the first two have ceased to be mate rial now. On the issue relating to the third ground, the Rent Controller held that in deciding whether the tenants should be ordered to hand over posse ssion to the landlord, the Courts must have regard to the bona .fiiles of the the request of the landlord, which meant that the desire to rebuild the premises should be honPstlv held by the landlord, but that the conrlition of the building also played an impor tant part in determining whether the landlord had the intPntion genuinelv and was not using this excuse as a device to get rid of the tenants. In this connec tion, thA Rent Controller observed that the state of the buildin!!', the mPaos of the landlord, and the po ssibility of a better yield by way of rPnt, all entered into the appraisal of the landlord's state of mind. Examining the case from this angle, the Rent con troller held that there was hardly any proof that the building was in a dilapidated conrlition. One solitary witness who testified to this, admitted that he had not seen the building from the inside. The landlord himself did not give evidence. On the other hand, there was ample evidence that the huildin!( was good. As regards the financial status of the landlord, the witnfB~ea who stated on his behalf that he could spend Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 knew nothing abol't his means. Even the landlord's brother. who conducted this case on behi.lf of the landlord, could not give any details. The plan showed a building requiring about Rs. 20,000 to build. The landlord had an income of Rs. 200/ per month. and hs family consisted of his wife and five chiJrlren. 'J'he Rent Contro!IPr, therefore, h1>ld that he had no means to rebuild the prPmises. The Rent Controller did not feel impressed by. the alle ged purcha •c of 40 bags of cement, because a. greater part of the cement was used up already in building two or three latrines, and the quantity left was whrJlly insufficient for the proposed buil ding. He, therefore, decided the issue against the landlord. IM! 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19€'.') SUPP. On appeal, these findinp:R w<'ro !'Onfirmed by the appellate aut.hority, who ht•ld that th" •hop~ and chobaraa were in good condition, and that the landlord was not, in good faith, w.,.ntiug to replace the buildin)!, wh1·n ho ha'! 110 mea11s to build it. Again't the order of the "pp<·llat" auth ority, an application for revisi"n ru1 p"rting t•> be under s. 15(15) of the E•st Punjab C'rlm11 Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (:l of 1949), was fif,.,J in tt." High Court. Thie application was 11]J.,w,·d. The learned single J udg<' J'OSed the question thus: " The question in the pr<>sent case whether there is a bona fide desire to rebuild · the pro>miseo?". He referred to an earlier deciRion of a Divi~innal Bench of that Court (<'ivil Re\•ision No. 22~ of l!l60), in which GnRain, J., laid down the law in the following worrlR: " It iR pMtincnt to note that tho wur<I 'huilding' in th<' aforesaid clause is not rpwfi. fkd by the words 'requiring reconRtruction' or 'requiring rebuilding'. Tho landlord can, in thofe circumstances, require any building for the re-erection of thfl ea.me, and when in any case a claim to that effect is made hy him the only point that has to be determined i• whethtr on the facts 11.nd cirCUll!Mtsnces of requirement is bona fide. A that case his buildin2, for in8tance-, may not be immedia tely unsafe, but its condition may be such that unlN•B it is reconRtructed it mav involve the landlord at a later date very ·heavy ex penditnre. All rounrl a particular buildin ( different types of buildings may have be~n constructed of an entirely d1ffnent d~sign and •,be particular building· in question may then ho looking very ugly and the landlord may want to bring the same In conformity with the struotures a.round it.'' 1962 N1t.J Uam Y. Jiwan Lal Hidayatu!lah J. 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 627 After quoting this passage, the learned Judge observed that the consideration which must weigh in determining the question of ejectment is whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the premi ses, and further, that the actual condition of the premises is "a wholly irrelevant factor". In dea ling with th" merits of the case, the learned Judge refern·d to the offer of the landlord to put back the tf.'nants in possession, if the premises were not demolished within a month of his obtaining poss ession thereof, and concluded, without discussing the evidence, as follows : "Upon the evidence on record it seems to me established beyond all doubt that the landlord genuinely and bona fide requires these premises for re building." He, therefore, sPt aside the concurrent orders of the two Tribunals, and ordered the eviction of the tenants, giving them two month's time in which to vacate the premises. Two questions . have been argued in appeal. The first is that the revision application is incompetent, because under s.10 (4) of ·the Patiala and East Punjab States Union rrban Rent Restric tion Ordinan<ie, 'the decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision, an order of the Uontroller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law whe ther in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal or revision". It is contended that s.15(5) of the E,ist Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which conferred a powt'r of revision on the High Court does not apply to the present case, because this case did not arise in proceedings taken under the Act. The n<· 'l:t contention is that the int9rpretation placed by the learne.d Judge upon s. 13(3) (a) (iii) read withs. 13 (3) (b) is erroneous, and that the High Court had no power to reverse a concurrent findiug of fact without itself re-appraising the evi dence, if at all. 196t [NM Rom v. JU-Ram H i"'rl<Jlu/h J. 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. On the first point, the learned counsPI for the respondent.s relies upon a deoifion of this Court re· ported in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan('), where it was in analogous cir· held that a revision application In our opinion, cumstanoee was maintainable. even if a revision application lay, the learned single Judge was in error in his interpretation of the rf'le vant sections of the Ordinance, and in reversing a concurrent finding of fact, without giving any s·1b stantia.I reasons. Section 13 of the Ordinance, omitting portions which are irrelevant here, reads as follow~: "13. (I) Notwithstanding anything con tained in any other law for the time being in force, a tenant in posseesion of a building or rented land shall not be evicted tber,·from in f'Xecution of 11 decree paesed bef0rc or afwr the commencement of this Ordinance or other "ise and whether before or after the te1mina tion of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section. x x x (3) (a.) A landlord may apply to the Control ler for an order directing the tenant to put the hmdlorcl in poeseseion. x x x (iii) in the case of any building, if be the re .erect ion of requires it for that building or for its replacement by another building, or for the erec tion of other building ; x x i• sntiofo'd that the claim of the landlord is bona. fide, make an order directing the tf nant to put the landlord in posseBSion of the building or rented land on such date as (b) The Controller shall, if he x 1 I ) t1960J 2 S.C.R. S96. 1962 .. Nila Ram Jiwan Lal HJ.d1yatul/ah 1. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 629 may be specified by the Controller, .and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the appli cation; :x x x (4) whece a landlord who has obtained posses sion of building or rented land in pursua nce of an order under ... sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid paragraph (a) put that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other then the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly ...... " Reading these provisions as a whole, it is obvious that if the landlo"'1's need be genuiP.e and he satisfies the Controller, he can obtain possession of the building or the land, as the case may be. If, however, he does not re·erect the building and puts it to a:1y other use or lets it out to another tenant, the former tenant can apply to be put back in possession. Clause (b) clearly dhows both affir matively and negatively that the landlord must satisfy the Uontrolln about his claim, before he can obtain an order in his favour. The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the this conclusion, obviously the claim. To reach Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the build ing, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord comes forward, and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, 111111 v. Jiroan Loi H"4;1auJlaA J. 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. said to be entertained by him. Tho clause speaks not of the bona fide& of the landlord, hut says, on the other hand, that the claim of the la11dlord the building fur reconstruction that he requires and re-erection must be booo fide, that is to say. honest in the oircumstanoes. It is impossible, there fore, to hold that the investigation by the Controller should be confined only to the l'Xist11nce of an inten tion to reconstruct, in the mind oi the landlord. This intention must be honestly held in rolat.ion to the surrounding circumstance~. In our opinion, the interpretation placed by the l'unjab High Court (in the dcoi.llion of Gosain, J.) puts too narrow a construction, and leaves very little for the Control ler to decide. It is well-known that Rent Restric. tion Acts were passed in view of the shortage of houses and the High rents which were Leing demanded by landlords. The very pu1 pose of the Rent Hestrictlon Acts would be defrated, if the landlords were to c~o forward and to get tenants turned out, on the bare plea. that they the houses, without first establishing that the plea is bona fide with regard to all the circumstances, viz., that the houses need the means to reconstruction or that reconstruct them, etc. The two Tribunals below had gone into the matter thoroughly, and had agreed that the landlord had neither the means to reconstruct the builrlin~ nor had he made any attempt to face croBB-examination at1 a party. They were also of the opinion that the building was in a good state and did not need to be pulled down or reconstructed. With such clear findings, one would expect that a revising Court, however vide ita powers may be, would, at least, go into tho 'th;:tion over again, if it was going to depart from unanimous conclusion. It is hardly neoe888.ry to go into the question of the exknt of the powers of the High Court under s. 15 (5) of the Rent Restriction Act. They have been adverted to in the ruling of tbfa Court. above mentioned. 'J Lt they have reconstruct 1962 Neta Ram •• Jiwan Lal Hidoyalul/a!i J. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 631 do not, however, include the power to reverse concurrent findings, without showing how those findings are erroneous. In the present case, the learned Judge has 'given his ooncluaion without adverting to single piece of evidence, from which his conclusion was drawn. In these ciruumstances it cannot be said that he had examined the pro priety o( the order sought to be revised, even under the provisions of the law be was administering. Learned counsel relying upon the case to which we have already referred, said that there the Municipal Comn~ittee was the s11nction by taken into consideration in deciding thn need of the landlord. The facts in that ruse are not fully stated, and from the observations, it would appear that there was other evidence besides the sanction by the l\lunicipal Committee, on which the conclu sion of the High Court was supported. In any event, a case cannot be an authority on a point of fact, and each ca°'e will have tu be examined in the light of the circumstances existing in it. In the present case, the two Tribunals specially appoin ted t > consid .. r these matters, went, thoroughly into the question, and discu~sed it from a correct angle. If th''Y h>id examined the facts aftei: instructing thems~lves correctly about the law, a Court of revision should be slow to interfere with the deci sion thus reached, unless it demonstrates by its own decision, the impropriety of the order, which it seeks to revise. No attempt of this kind has been mad!l in this case, and in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in reversing the clear fiuding. In the result, this appeal must be allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside, and that of the appellate authority is restored. The land lord shall p~y the costs here and in the High Court. Appeal allowed.