Delhi Rent Control | Improper Description Of Property In Application No Ground To Set Aside Possession Order Under Section 25-B(8) : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, has held that when the Rent Controller permits eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement by the Landlord after perusing facts and evidence on record, then such order cannot be set aside by the High Court in review...
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, has held that when the Rent Controller permits eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement by the Landlord after perusing facts and evidence on record, then such order cannot be set aside by the High Court in review under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 upon the ground that the description of property was not proper in the application.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“Act 1958”) lays down a special procedure for disposal of eviction applications wherein eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement. No appeal or second appeal is entertained against an order made under Section 25B and only a revision can lie under Section 25-B (8). However, under Section 25-B(8) pure finding of fact cannot be interfered with unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of law.
The Appellant is a widowed lady having no issues of her own and resides with the family of her brother-in-law. The Appellant (Landlord) is the owner of a premises the title of which was transferred to her by her brother-in-law. The Premises was let out by the Appellant to tenants for residential purposes.
An application was filed by the Appellant seeking eviction of the tenants from the Premises, citing that the Premises were required bona fide occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family.
The Rent Controller passed an order for eviction of the tenants, against which the Tenants filed a revision petition before the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of Act 1958.
The High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller while observing that the Appellant had not been forthright and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner. Since the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed, no case for bona fide requirement was made out.
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
The Bench observed that the High Court has gone far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act 1958. While deprecating the approach of the High Court the Bench observed as under:
“A bare look at the consideration of the High Court in the orders impugned makes it clear that the so-called want of clear description of the suit premises as also the identification and extent of the property available with the family has formed the principal consideration of the High Court. The High Court has examined the copy of site plan filed with the eviction petition and its caption describing it as Property No.C-586 with no reference to Property No.C-587. The High Court has noticed that when being cross-examined in relation to the availability of accommodation with the wife of her brother-in-law, the appellant stated that Plot Nos.586 and 587 were joined together for raising construction of one building. Such evidence and the related arguments were found unacceptable by the High Court for being not based on pleadings. With respect, we are unable to endorse the approach of the High Court.”
It was observed that the Appellant had provided a detailed description of the Premises in its petition by attaching the site plan and also stated the extent of her requirement. There was no misdescription of the Premises which would amount to a material flaw or caused prejudice to the tenants.
Rent Controller’s order for possession cannot be interfered with on the ground that description of property was not proper in the application
Further, the tenants (Respondents) had opposed the eviction on the sole ground that other properties and accommodations were available with the family. The Rent Controller had declined to accept the tenant’s contention since occupation was sought for bona fide requirement. The findings of Rent Controller were arrived at on the basis of facts and evidence on record. Therefore, was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague ground of want of clarity about description of the property in question.
“It would, of course, appear from the material placed on record that the appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other referred members of the family might be having title or interest in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons.”
The Bench held that the bona fide requirement of the Appellant of the Premises cannot be disturbed by the High Court on the vague ground of want of clarity about identification of the Premises. Accordingly, the High Court’s order has been set aside and Rent Controller’s order permitting eviction has been restored.
Case Title: Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 368