Civil appeal No 646 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 7 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No 354 of 1959
Gopal Singh for the appellates
Bishan Narain and Naunit lal for the respondent No 1 1962
January 17
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh dated April 7 1961
The appellants are five tenants who have been evicted from certain shops and chobaras in the town of Patiala on the application of the first respondent the landlord
The application by the landlord was made in June 1957 under section 13 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction ordinance 2006 BK No VIII of 2006 BK
The grounds urged by the landlord were a non payment of rent by the tenants b non payment of house tax by the tenants and c that the shops were in a state of great disrepair and were dilapidated and the landlord wished to rebuild them after dismantling the structures
The landlord averred that he had obtained sanction of the Municipal Committee to a proposed plan of construction and accumulated some building material before making the application
The tenants resisted the application
The Rent Controller framed issues relating to the three 625 grounds but the first two have ceased to be material 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 possession to the landlord the Courts must have regard to the bona fides of the request of the landlord which meant that the desire to rebuild the premises should be honestly held by the landlord but that the condition of the building also played an important part in determining whether the landlord had the intention genuinely and was not using this excuse as a devise to get rid of the tenants
In this connection the Rent Controller observed that the state of the building the means of the landlord and the possibility of a better yield by way of rent all entered into the appraisal of the landlord s state of mind
Examining the case from this angle the Rent Controller held that there was hardly any proof that the building was in a dilapidated condition
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 building was good
As regards the financial status of the landlord the witnesses who stated on his behalf that he could spend Rs 5000 to Rs 10000 knew nothing about his means
Even the landlord s brother
who conducted this case on behalf of the landlord could not give any details
The plan showed a building requiring about Rs 20000 to build
The landlord had an income of Rs 200 per month and his family consisted of his wife and five children
The Rent Controller therefore held that he had no means to rebuild the premises
The Rent Controller did not feel impressed by the alleged purchase 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 wholly insufficient for the proposed building
He therefore decided the issue against the landlord
626 On appeal these findings were confirmed by the appellate authority who held that the shops and chobaras were in good condition and that the landlord was not in good faith wanting to replace the building when he had no means to built it
Against the order of the appellate authority an application for revision purporting to be under section 155 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 3 of 1949 was filed in the High Court
This application was allowed
The learned single Judge posed the question thus The question in the present case is whether there is a bona fide desire to rebuild the premises
He referred to an earlier decision of a Divisional Bench of that Court Civil Revision No 223 of 1960 in which Gosain J laid down the law in the following words It is pertinent to note that the word building  in the aforesaid clause is not qualified by the words requiring reconstruction  or requiring rebuilding 
The landlord can in these circumstances require any building for the re erection of the same and when in any case a claim to that effect is made by him the only point that has to be determined is whether on the facts and circumstances of that case his requirement is bona fide
A building for instance may not be immediately unsafe but its condition may be such that unless it is reconstructed it may involve the landlord at a later date very heavy expenditure
All round a particular building different types of buildings may have been constructed of an entirely different design and the particular building in question may then be looking very ugly and the landlord may want to bring the same in conformity with the structures around it
 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 premises and further that the actual condition of the premises is a wholly irrelevant factor
In dealing with the merits of the case the learned Judge referred to the offer of the landlord to put back the tenants in possession if the premises were not demolished within a month of his obtaining possession 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 rebuilding He therefore set 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 this appeal
The first is that the revision application is incompetent because under s164 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction ordinance the decision of the appellate authority and subject only to such decision an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal or revision
It is contended that s155 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which conferred a power 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 next contention is that the interpretation placed by the learned Judge upon section 133 a iii read with section 13 3 b is erroneous and that the High Court had no power to reverse a concurrent finding of fact without itself re appraising the evidence if at all
628 On the first point the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a decision of this court reported in Moti Ram vs Suraj Bhan 1 where it was held that a revision application in analogous circumstances was maintainable
In our opinion even if a revision application lay the learned single Judge was in error in his interpretation of the relevant sections of the ordinance and in reversing a concurrent finding of fact without giving any substantial reasons
Section 13 of the ordinance omitting portions which are irrelevant here reads as follows 13
1 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this ordinance or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy except in accordance with the provisions of this section
x x x 3 a A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession
x x x iiiin the case of any building if he requires it for the re erection of that building or for its replacement by another building or for the erection of other building x x x b The Controller shall if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bonafide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on such date as 629 may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application x x x 4 where a landlord who has obtained possession of building or rented land in pursuance 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 landlord s need be genuine 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 any other use or lets it out to another tenant the former tenant can apply to be put back in possession
Clause b clearly shows both affirmatively and negatively that the landlord must satisfy the Controller about his claim before he can obtain an order in his favour
The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim
To reach this conclusion obviously the 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 building 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 630 said to be entertained by him
The clause speaks not of the bona fides of the landlord but says on the other hand that the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re erection must be bona fide that is to say
honest in the circumstances
It is impossible therefore to hold that the investigation by the Controller should be confined only to the existance of an intention to reconstruct in the mind of the landlord
This intention must be honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances
In our opinion the interpretation placed by the Punjab High Court in the decision of Gosain J puts too narrow a construction and leaves very little for the Controller to decide
It is well known that Rent Restriction Acts were passed in view of the shortage of houses and the High rents which were being demanded by landlords
The very purpose of the Rent Restriction Acts would be defeated if the landlords were to come forward and to get tenants turned out on the bare plea that they want to reconstruct the houses without first establishing that the plea is bona fide with regard to all the circumstances viz that the houses need reconstruction or that they have the means to 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 building nor had he made any attempt to face cross examination as 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 its powers may be would at least go into the question over again if it was going to depart from this unanimous conclusion
It is hardly necessary to go into the question of the extent of the powers of the High Court under section 155 of the Rent Restriction Act
They have been adverted to in the ruling of this Court above mentioned
They 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 conclusion without adverting to single piece of evidence from which his conclusion was drawn
In these circumstances it cannot be said that he had examined the propriety of the order sought to be revised even under the provisions of the law he was administering
Learned counsel relying upon the case to which we have already referred said that there the sanction by the Municipal Committee was taken into consideration in deciding the need of the landlord
The facts in that case are not fully stated and from the observations it would appear that there was other evidence besides the sanction by the Municipal Committee on which the conclusion of the High Court was supported
In any event a case cannot be an authority on a point of fact and each case will have to be examined in the light of the circumstances existing in it
In the present case the two Tribunals specially appointed to consider these matters went thoroughly into the question and discussed it from a correct angle
If they had examined they facts after instructing themselves correctly about the law a Court of revision should be slow to interfere with the decision 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 made in this case and in our opinion the High Court was not justified in reversing the clear finding
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 landlord shall pay the costs here and in the High Court
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The application for eviction against the appellant was based inter alia on the ground that the premises in suit were dilapidated and the landlord wished to rebuild them after dismantling the structure
The Rent Controller dismissed the application observing that there was hardly any proof that the building was in a dilapidated condition and that the landlord had no means to rebuild the premises
The appellate authority confirmed the finding holding that the premises were in good condition and that the landlord was not in good faith wanting to replace the building
An applications purporting to be under section 155 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 was made before the High Court
The High Court following an earlier decision of the same Court allowed the revision petition holding that in determining the question of ejectment what needs alone to be considered is whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the permises and that the condition of the premises is a wholly irrelevant factor 
 Held that the investigation by the Rent Controller cannot be confined only to the existence of an intention in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct
This intention must be honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances otherwise the very purpose of the Rent Restriction Act would be defeated if the landlords were to come forward and to get tenants turned out on the bare plea that they want to reconstruct the house without first establishing that the plea is bona fide with regard to all circumstances viz that the houses need reconstruction or that they have the means to reconstruct them
Held further that when the Tribunals have examined the facts after instructing themselves correctly about law a Court of Revision should be slow to interfere with the decision thus reached unless it demonstrates by its own decision the impropriety of the order which it seeks to revise
Under section 155 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 the powers of the High Court do not include 624 powers to perverse a concurrent finding without showing how those finding are erroneous and without giving any substantial reasons for its finding
Held also that a case cannot be an authority on a point of fact and reach case has to be examined in the light of the circumstances existing
Moti Ram vs Suraj Bhan 1960 2 section C R 896 referred to