Civil Appeal No 2969 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 2951984 of the Punjab 241 and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No 1934 of 1982
Harbans Lal and Balmokand Goyal for the Appellant
VC Mahajan and KR Nagaraja for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH J
This appeal by special Leave by the tenant arises out of the proceedings for eviction instituted against him under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 and is preferred against the judgment dated 2951984 in Civil Revision No 1934 of 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversing the judgment dated 3041982 made by the Appellate Authority Kapurthala in Rent Appeal No 130 and restoring that of the Rent Controller dated 17121978 in rent case No 47 of 1977 granting possession to the Respondent landlords
Appellant was a tenant of the premises concerned in the proceedings on a monthly rent of Rs3 having been inducted into possession on 9121965 by the then owner Smt
Manohar Kaur
The premises in the occupation of the appellant consist of a portion of the ground floor of the building
On 15121976 the said Manohar Kaur sold the entire property in favour of respondents
The respondents are four brothers
Prior to the purchase they were occupying as tenants other portions of the same building both in the first floor and the second floor
They were in occupation of three rooms in the first floor and one in the second
On 2791977 respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of their own bonafide requirement of the premises
They alleged that the portion in their occupation was insufficient for their needs and that they required additional accommodation
They said that they were in all 10 brothers who alongwith their families were living together with their father
Appellant contested the claim urging that the first respondent one of the brothers was in occupation of other rented premises in the same town at a place called Mohalla Malka na that the respondents  father was himself in occupation of a separate rented premises that the accommodation already available to the respondents was 242 more than sufficient for their requirements and that accordingly their projected need was fictitious and malafide
Appellant also said that the proceedings were brought in collusion with the previous owner
On an appreciation of the evidence the Rent Controller upheld the claim of the landlords and made an order granting possession
The Appellate Authority District Judge however allowed appellants  appeal and set aside the order of eviction
The High Court in revision under Section 155 of the Act reversed the appellate judgment and restored that of the court of first instance
The aggrieved tenant has come up by special leave
In support of the appeal Shri Harbans Lal learned senior advocate urged that the order of the High Court suffers from and stands vitiated by two serious errors The first according to the learned counsel is that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction was precluded from reopening findings of facts recorded by the Appellate Authority and substituting fresh findings of its own on a reappraisal of the evidence even if the fresh findings so recorded could be said to be amongst those possible on the evidence
Learned Counsel placed reliance on Mattulal vs Radhe Lal  and Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M Patel  Ors  The second is that the findings as to the bonafides or the lack of it of the alleged need for the additional accommodation recorded by the Appellate Authority were sound proper and supportable on the evidence on record and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not have reappraised the evidence afresh and that the findings so substituted by the High Court are wholly erroneous
VC Mahajan learned senior advocate for the respondent landlords however sought to support the order of the High Court
Upon a consideration of the matter we are of the view that both the contentions urged in support of the appeal are in substantial
It is no doubt true that the question whether the requirement of the landlords is bonafide or not is essentially one of fact notwithstanding the circumstance that a finding of fact is a secondary and inferential fact drawn from other primary or perceptive ones
All conclusions drawn from primary facts are not necessarily questions of law
They can be and quite often are pure questions of fact
The question as to bonafide requirement is one such
243 Statutes enacted to afford protection to tenants from eviction on the basis of contractual rights of the parties make the resumption of possession by the land lord subject to the satisfaction of certain statutory conditions
One of them is the bonafide requirement of the land lord variously described in the statutes as bona fide requirement reasonable requirement bona fide and reasonable requirement or as in the case of the present statute merely referred to as landlord requires for his own use
But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest conceived in good faith and that further the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need
Landlord s desire for possession however honest it might otherwise be has inevitably a subjective element in it and that that desire to become a requirement in law must have the objective element of a need
It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and therefore eligible to be gratified
In doing so that court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down
On the first contention that the revisional powers do not extend to interference with and upsetting of findings of fact it needs to be observed that subject to the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions the matter essentially turns on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction
The decisions relied upon by Shri Harbans Lal deal in the first case with the limitations on the scope of interference with findings of fact in second appeals and in the second with the limitation on the revisional powers where the words in the statute limit it to the examination whether or not the order under revision is according to law
 The scope of the revisional powers of the High Court where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law is considered by Beaument CJ in Bell  Co Ltd vs Waman Hemraj AIR 1938 Bombay 223 a case referred to with approval by this Court in Hari Shankar vs Girdhari Lal Chowdhury AIR 1963 SC 698
But here Section 155 of the Act enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order under revision which is quite obviously a much wider jurisdiction
That jurisdiction enables the court of revision in appropriate cases to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also though the revisional court is not a second court of first appeal See Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs Vithalrao Marutirao
244 Referring to the nature and scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the limitations inherent in the concept of a Revision  this Court in Ms Ranalakshmi Dyeing Works  Ors
vs Rangaswamy Chettier at 167 observed   2
Appeal and revision are expressions of common usage in Indian statutes and the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction is well known though not well defined
Ordinarily appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing as it were on law as well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person
Such jurisdiction may however be limited in some way as for instance has been done in the case of second appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure and under some Rent Acts in some States
Ordinarily again revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence and may sometimes be exercised even without its being invoked by a party
The extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the statute conferring such jurisdiction    
Revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily understood with reference to our statutes is always included in appellate jurisdiction but not vice versa
These are general observations
The question of the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction has to be considered in each case with reference to the language employed by the statute   The criticism of Sri Harbans Lal that it was impermissible for the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority however erroneous they be is not having regard to the language in which the revisional power is couched tenable
In an appropriate case the High Court can reappraise the evidence if the findings of the appellate court are found to be infirm in law
Now to the second contention
The High Court was of the view that certain findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the question of the bonafides of the requirement of the landlords were based on material which was not quite relevant
Secondly the High Court took into account certain subsequent events brought on record
In regard to the first aspect the High Court observed 
According to the learned Appellate Authority there was no evidence on record to prove that the landlords were 245 ten brothers since their father had not come in the witnessbox to depose in this regard
This approach of the learned Appellate Authority is without wrong and illegal
There was nothing to disbelieve Ishwar Chander when he says that they are ten brothers
No question was put to him in the cross examination to challenge the said statement of his   The High Court noticed that so far as the premises which were said to be in the occupation of the Ishwar Chander Respondent No 1 were concerned the owner of those premises was seeking resumption of possession
Further in respect of the accommodation in the hands of the farther there were already proceedings for eviction against him binding decision in the High Court
In regard to the subsequent events which the High Court took notice of it said  
Thus what has to be seen is whether the accommodation in their occupation is sufficient for their requirements or not
Of course out of the four landlords one is married and the others were unmarried when the ejectment application was filed in the year 1977
However about seven years have passed since then
Mean while Surinder Kumar landlord has also been married and he has got one son aged 2 years whereas Subhash Chand has also been recently married in March 1984 as per the affidavit of Hukam Chand father of the landlords dated 27th May 1984
Thus there was nothing on the record to show that the present accommodation in occupation of the landlords was sufficient to meet their requirements   Courts can take a cautious cognizance of the subsequent events in order to mould the relief
The High Court did that  No fault could be found with that
CMP No 33347 is filed by the appellant seeking to bring certain subsequent events on record
The alleged subsequent event is that pursuant to an agreement for purchase of another residential building entered into by the first respondent and his wife a sale deed had subsequently come to be executed in favour of first respondent s wife
The contention is that having regard to this subsequent acquisition the present claim for additional accommodation does not survive
246 We are afraid this circumstance even if true will not tilt the balance in favour of the appellant
Even if the need of the other three brothers who are co owners is taken into account the order of eviction is supportable on the basis of ther need
CMP is therefore of no practical assistance to the appellant
In the result we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but without an order as to costs
RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
This appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court in writ petition and the writ petition filed in this Court were directed against an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate against the appellant under sub section
2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The appellant was a comission agent or broker engaged in illicit business of liquor traffic at Godhara in the State of Gujarat where there is total prohibition by importing liquor from Vanswada in Rajasthan
On prior information that the appellant was about to import liquor in a truck on the night between 29th30th December 1986 the Gujarat police intercepted the truck and found it laden with cases containing bottles of whisky and beer etc
It was evident from the statements of the driver and the cleaner that the appellant had purchased the liquor from Vanswada
The appellant could not be traced till 2nd February 1987 when he was arrested but later released on bail
On 28th May 1987 the District Magistrate Godhara passed an order of detention and served it alongwith the grounds of detention on the appellant on the 30th when he was taken into custody
The immediate and proximate cause for the detention was that on 29th30th December 1986 he had transported in bulk foreign liquor from Vanswada in Rajasthan for delivery in the State of Gujarat and indulged in anti social activities by doing illicit business of foreign liquor
The grounds furnished particulars of two other criminal cases namely i Criminal Case No 30382 on account of recovery of 142 bottles of foreign liquor seized from his residence on 21st July 1982 which had ended in acquittal as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and ii Criminal Case No 15086 relating to seizure of 24 bottles of foreign liquor from his house on 30th May 1986 which was still pending
288 The appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court assailing the order of detention
The High Court declined to interfere
The appellant then filed in this Court the appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court and the writ petition against the order of detention
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition the Court  HELD When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law of preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds of detention and afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
The power of preventive detention underany law for preventive detention is necessarily subject to the limitations enjoined on the exercise of such power by article 225 as construed by this Court
The Court must be circumspect in striking down an order of detention where it meets with the requirements of article 225 of the Constitution
294C E 295D E Since preventive detention is a serious inroad on individual liberty and its justification is the prevention of inherent danger of activity prejudicial to the community the detaining authority must be satisfied as to the sufficiency of the grounds which justify the taking of the drastic measure of preventive detention
The requirements of article 225 are satisfied once basic facts and materials  which weighed with the detaining authority in reaching his subjective satisfaction are communicated to the detenu
There is apt to be some delay between the prejudicial activity complained of in section 31 of the Act and the making of an order of detention
When a person is detected in the act of smuggling or foreign exchange racketeering the Directorate of Enforcement has to make a thorough investigation into all the facts with a view to determining the identity of the persons engaged in these operations
Their statements have to be recorded their books of accounts and other related documents have to be examined
Sometimes such investigation has to be carried on for months together
The Directorate has to consider whether there is necessity in the public interest to direct the detention of a person under section 31 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange or from engaging in smuggling of goods etc
The proposal has to be cleared at the highest quarter and then placed before a Screening Committee
If the Screening Committee approves the proposal is placed before the detaining authority
The detaining authority would necessarily insist upon sufficiency of grounds which 289 would justify the preventively detaining of the person
Viewed from this prospective the Court emphasised for the guidance of the High Courts that a distinction must be drawn between delay in making an order of detention under a law relating to preventive detention and the delay in complying with the procedural safeguards of article 225 of the Constitution
The rule as to unexplained delay in taking action is not inflexible
The Courts should not merely on account of delay in making an order of detention assume that the delay if not satisfactorily explained must necessarily give rise to an inference that there was no sufficient material for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority or that such subjective satisfaction was not genuinely reached
Taking of such a view would not be warranted unless the Court finds that the grounds are stale  or illusory or that there is no real nexus between the grounds and the order of detention
The decisions to the contrary by the Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar Bhasin vs Union of India  Ors Crl
W No 41086 dated 221987 Bhupinder Singh vs Union of India  Ors  Anwar Esmail Aibani vs Union of India  Ors Crl
W No 37586 dated 11121986 Surinder Pal Singh vs ML Wadhawan Delhi Administration Crl
W No 4384 dated 1641984 and Cases taking the same view did not lay down good law and were overruled
In this case the appellant was arrested on 2nd February 1987
The order of detention of the appellant was passed on 28th May 1987
Though there was no explanation for the delay between 2nd February and 28th May 1987 it could not give rise to a legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate was not genuine or that the grounds were stale or illusory or that there was no rational connection between the grounds and the impugned order of detention
295F G 296B H 297A G 298C D It could not be said that there was lack of awareness on the part of the District Magistrate on 28th May 1987 in passing the order of detention as he did
There was a mention in the grounds of the two criminal cases against the detenu Criminal Case No 30382 and Criminal Case No 15086 and also a recital of the fact that he was continuing his business surreptitiously and he could not be caught easily and therefore there was compelling necessity to detain him
300D The contention regarding lack of certainty and precision on the part of the detaining authority as to the real purpose of detention and that they were all rolled up into one  was of little or no consequence
The purpose of detention is to prevent the appellant from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
It was disputed 290 that the prejudicial activities of the appellant answered the description of a bootlegger  as defined in section 2b and therefore he came within the purview of sub section
1 of section 3 of the Act by reason of sub section
4 thereof
Sub section
4 of section 3 with the explanation thereto gives an enlarged meaning to the words acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order 
The district magistrate in passing the impugned order recorded his subjective satisfaction that with a view to preventing the appellant from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to make an order that he be detained
In the accompanying grounds of detention this was the basis for the formation of his subjective satisfaction and it was stated therein that unless the order of detention was made he would not stop his illicit liquor traffic on brokerage and therefore it was necessary to detain him under section 32 of the Act
300E G 301C D The contention that there was unexpected delay in the disposal of the representation made by the appellant to the State Government was wholly misconceived
The representations were made by the appellant on 8th June 1987
The State Government acted with promptitude and rejected them on 12th June 1987
There was no delay
301F G The appeal and the writ petition failed
Khudiram Das vs State of West Bengal   Narendra Purshottam Umrao vs BB Gujral   Olia Mallick vs State of West Bengal  Golam Hussain  Gama vs Commissioner of Police Calcutta  Ors   Odut Ali Miah vs State of West Bengal  Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Bihar 1954 3 SCC 14 Gora vs State of West Bengal   Raj Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar  Ors   Hemlata Kantilal Shah vs State of Maharashtra   Bal Chand Bansal vs Union of India  Ors JT  Ramesh Yadav vs District magistrate Etah and Suraj Pal Sahu vs State of Maharashtra   referred to
Anil Kumar Bhasin vs Union of India  Ors Crl
W No 41086 dated 221987 Bhupinder Singh vs Union of India  Ors  Anwar Esmail Alibani vs Union of India  Ors Crl
W No 37586 dated 11121986 Surinder Pal Singh vs ML Wadhawan  Ors Crl
W No 44486 dated 931987 and Ramesh Lal vs Delhi Administration Crl
W No 4384 dated 1641984 overruled