Summary
A widowed landlady obtained eviction orders under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for her bona fide requirement and that of her brother-in-law's family living with her; the Delhi High Court, in revision under Section 25-B(8), reversed them on the ground that she had not been forthright about the property being built on two adjoining plots, one owned by her sister-in-law. The Supreme Court restored the eviction orders, holding that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by disturbing findings of fact on a vague ground of misdescription, when the pleadings read as a whole with the site plan and her cross-examination disclosed no material flaw or prejudice to the tenants.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, could reverse the Rent Controller's findings of fact on bona fide requirement on the ground that the landlady had not clearly described the property as standing on two adjoining plots.
- Whether an alleged want of clarity in describing the suit property, clarified in cross-examination and not shown to have prejudiced the tenants, could defeat an otherwise established case of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e).
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958Ground of eviction where residential premises are required bona fide by the landlord for herself or dependent family members and no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available; the Rent Controller found the requirement of the landlady and her joint family established and the Supreme Court restored that finding without deciding whether the brother-in-law's family were dependents. (¶¶ 12, 13, 21, 22)
- Section 25-B(8) and its proviso, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958No appeal lies against an eviction order under the special procedure; the High Court may only call for the record to satisfy itself that the order is according to law, a power of superintendence that does not permit substituting its own view on facts, as explained in Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) the High Court's revisional role is confined to satisfying itself that the Rent Controller's order is according to law; a pure finding of fact is not open to interference unless reached on a wrong premise of law, and the power cannot be converted into a regular first appeal. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Read as a whole with the site plan and the landlady's cross-examination, the pleadings disclosed the extent of accommodation, that the building stood on plots C-586 and C-587 jointly, and that she and her sister-in-law lived there as one family; there was no misdescription amounting to a material flaw or causing prejudice to the tenants, who never disputed their tenancy. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- The Rent Controller's rejection of the tenants' suggestion that other properties were available was a finding of fact on evidence, and the extensive requirement found by the Rent Controller was neither negated nor rejected by the High Court; such findings could not be upset on the nebulous ground of want of clarity about identification of the property. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court's orders dated 17.04.2018 in RC.REV. Nos. 78 and 80 of 2015 set aside and the Rent Controller's eviction orders dated 21.11.2014 restored. Tenants granted time to vacate by 31.12.2023 on depositing all arrears of rent within four weeks and filing the usual undertaking. Parties to bear their own costs.