The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that High Courts exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts. Setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, the apex court restored the eviction order passed against a tenant, directing the delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises within two months.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated when the landlady, Kamla Devi, instituted an eviction suit under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the tenant, Thakar Dass, seeking eviction from a shop premises on two grounds: non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for herself and her son, Madan Mohan. During the course of the protracted litigation, both the original landlady and her son passed away, as did the tenant, leading to their respective legal representatives prosecuting the proceedings.
The monthly rent for the tenancy was undisputed at Rs. 112.50 per month. In response to the eviction petition, the tenant tendered the unpaid rent arrears from July 17, 1998, to June 9, 2003, along with interest and costs totaling Rs. 8,740, which was accepted. However, the tenant contested the ground of bona fide requirement, arguing that an 80-year-old woman running a business was inconceivable, that another shop was being rented out by her other son Adarsh Mohan, and that a third constructed shop remained vacant.
The Rent Controller, Nabha, framed eight issues and decreed eviction in favor of the landlord on May 27, 2010, directing the tenant to hand over possession within three months. This decision was upheld on January 6, 2011, by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, which observed that although Kamla Devi had died, the personal necessity attached to her son Madan Mohan survived.
However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed these concurrent findings in a revision petition. The High Court held that the landlady had concealed the availability of a third shop and had not approached the court with clean hands, noting her statement in evidence that the third shop was used to store garbage.
Arguments and Legal Framework
Before the Supreme Court, Advocate-on-Record Mr. Anurag represented the appellant-landlord, while senior counsel Mr. Manoj Swarup appeared as amicus curiae for the respondent-tenant.
The Supreme Court examined the legal framework governing rent control statutes and the concept of “bona fide requirement.” Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India, the Court noted that rent control legislations are social measures meant to prevent tenant exploitation while balancing the conflicting rights of landlords.
Addressing the standard of bona fide requirement, the Court cited Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, which established that:
“The degree of intensity contemplated by “requires” is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase “required bona fide” is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant.”
The Court also referenced Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (citing Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander), emphasizing that a landlord’s desire must possess the objective element of a genuine need evaluated against all relevant circumstances.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Analyzing the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that both lower authorities had concurrently determined as a matter of fact that the third shop was being used to store waste material. Rebuking the High Court’s interference on this ground, the Supreme Court remarked:
“The old saying is, ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure’. So, even if the statement is accepted as it is, we fail to see what is wrong with it. Let it be used as such. After all, right from beginning the ‘bona fide requirement’ was pleaded for by both Kamla Devi and Madan Mohan. It was concurrently held as such by the RA and the AA. The one that had hitherto been rented, will now be used as a shop to run a boutique.”
The Supreme Court highlighted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly limited. It relied on Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, where it was established that:
“It is well settled position in law that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below by taking a different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are perverse or there has been a non-appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record by the courts below.”
The bench further pointed to the Constitution Bench judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, which laid down that:
“…Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”
Additionally, the Court referred to Ambadas Khanduji Shinde v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar, reaffirming that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to correct errors of fact unless they go to the root of jurisdiction.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and exceeding its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the apex court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated August 6, 2018, and restored the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller, Nabha, and Appellate Authority, Patiala. The respondent was directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the shop to the appellants within two months.
Case Details:
Case Title: Madan Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) Thr. LRs.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12435 of 2019
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: July 21, 2026
