Appeal No 848 of 1971
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 7 1970 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 110 D of 1966 Hardev Singh K P Kapur and H L Kapur for the appel lant
SK Mehta K L Mehta and K R Nagaraja for the res pondent
936 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
In this appeal Mr Hardev Singh learned counsel on behalf of the tenant appellant challenges the judgment and order dated December 7 1970 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 110 D of 1966
Special leave has been granted by this Court limited to the question whether the High Court was justified in view of section 392 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinafter called the Act in setting aside the decisions of the two subordinate authorities dismissing the application filed by the respondent landlord for evicting the appellant
The facts leading up to this appeal may be briefly stated
The appellant took on lease the first floor of the premises in question from the respondent on January 22 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs 250
The respondent who was the owner of the entire premises was then occupying the ground floor
The landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller on November 261964 for eviction of the appellant from the portion in his occupation as lessee on two grounds a that the tenant has sub let a part of the premises and b that he required the premises bona fide for his occupation as a residence himself and his family members
The latter claim was based under cl
e of the proviso to sub section 1 of section 14 of the Act which is as follows that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation The tenant opposed the claim of the landlord on both the grounds
He denied the allegation of sub letting
He also contended that the landlord s requirement for his occupation was not bonafide
The tenant s plea was that the portion of the premises in his occupation was sufficient for his purpose
The Rent Controller accepted the plea of the tenant that there was no subletting
He also accepted his plea that the requirement of the landlord for his occupation was not bona fide
On these findings the landlord s application was dismissed
These two findings were also confirmed in the appeal filed by the landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal
The question
regarding sub letting having been decided against the landlord by both the Tribunals no longer survives and it was also not agitated before the High Court
It may be stated at this stage that the findings of both the tribunals on the question of bonafide requirement were recorded against the landlord on the sole ground that the landlord must 937 have foreseen his requirement for additional accommodation even at the time when he let out a part of the premises on January 22 1964 to the appellant and therefore he was not entitled to ask for eviction under cl
e of the proviso to sub section 1 of section 14 of the Act
It is the view of both the Tribunals that when eviction is asked for within about I I months of the letting the claim of the landlord cannot be considered to be bonafide
The landlord carried the matter in appeal before the High Court under section 39 of the Act
That section runs as follows  391 Subject to the provisions of sub section 2 an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of such order  Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time
2No appeal shall lie under sub section 1 unless the appeal involves some substantial question of law
Before the High Court counsel for both parties made a representation that the Rent Control Tribunal has not recorded a finding on the question whether the premises avaiable with the landlord can be considered to be reasonably suitable residential accommodation as contemplated by cl
e of the proviso to section 14 1
Hence they made a joint request to remand the case to the Tribunal for a finding on the said question on the basis of the evidence already on record
Accepting this joint request the learned Judge remanded the case to the Tribunal
The latter after a consideration of the materials on record as well as the extent of the premises in the occupation of the landlord and also having due regard to the number of family members living with the latter held in his report dated May 4 1970 that the portion of the premises in the occupation of the landlord was not reaso nably sufficient for a family consisting of the landlord his wife his son son s wife and their children
On this basis he recorded a finding that the premises in the occupation of the respondent were not reasonably suitable for his residence
So far as we could see the correctness of these findings recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal in favour of the landlord do not appear to have been challenged by the tenant before the High Court when the appeal came up for final hearing
On the other band we find that the same contentions that were raised regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord and which found 938 acceptance at the hands of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal before remand were again raised by the tenant appellant before the High Court
That is in short the appellant herein was contesting before the High Court the appeal of the landlord ignoring the findings of the Tribunal dated May 4 1970
The main point that was urged by the appellant before the High Court was that as the two subordinate Tribunals have recorded concurrent findings negativing the claim of the landlord regarding his bonafide requirement of the premises the appeal filed by the landlord did not involve any substantial question of law
On this basis the appellant pressed for the dismissal of the landlord s appeal
On the other hand the respondent urged that both the subordinate Tribunals have not properly considered the question of the landlord s requirement and that the findings recorded against him were on irrelevant consideration
According to the landlord the various material factors which have to be taken into account for adjudicating upon such a claim have not been properly borne in mind by both the Tribunals
Quite naturally the landlord placed considerable reliance on the findings recorded on May 4 1970 in his favour by the Tribunal
The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that it has no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the findings
recorded by the two subordinate authorities especially when the relevant matters to be taken into account for deciding such a question have not been borne in mind by those authorities
The High Court is of the view that the rejection by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal of the claim of the landlord on the sole ground that he should have anticipated his requirement for the next 10 or II months when he let out the premises on lease on January 22 1964 was erroneous
The High Court has further observed that none of the subordinate authorities have held that after letting out the premises on January 22 1964 and before filing the application for eviction on November 26 1964 the landlord has made any demand from the tenant for payment of higher rent
Finally the High Court having due regard to the above circumstances and the size of the family of the landlord and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on May 4 1970 held that the decision of the two subordinate authorities dismissing the landlord s application was erroneous
On the other hand the learned Judge held that the landlord has made out his claim under cl
e of the proviso to section 141 of the Act
On this reasoning the learned Judge reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal and allowed the application of the landlord for eviction of the appellant
The appellant was given six months  time for vacating the premises
Mr Hardev Singh learned counsel for the appellant has very strenously urged that in view of the concurrent findings 939 recorded by the two subordinate tribunals there was no question of law much less a substantial question of law arising for consideration before the High Court in the appeal filed by the landlord
Hence he urged that the interference by the High Court with the concurrent findings so recorded was not justified
Learned counsel further pointed out that the landlord has not made out his claim under cl
e of the proviso to section 141 of the Act
Mr Hardev Singh referred us to certain decisions of this Court dealing with the question under what circumstances it can be con sidered that a substantial question of law arises
We do not think it necessary in the circumstances of this case to refer to those decisions as in our opinion they have no bearing on the short question that arises for consideration before us namely the power of the High Court under section 39 to consider the correctness of a finding regarding bonafide requirement under cl
e of the proviso to section 141 of the Act
As we have already pointed out the sole question that has to be decided by us is whether the High Court in reversing the decisions of the Rent Controller and the Tribunal in the circumstances of this case can be considered to have exceeded its jurisdiction under section 392
We are satisfied that the High Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction in any manner
The argument of Mr Hardev Singh that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under section 392 of the Act when it reversed the finding of the two subordinate authorities on the question of bonafide requirement has in our opinion no substance
In Smt
Kamla Soni vs Rup Lal Mehra1 this Court observed as follows 
Whether on the facts proved the requirement of the landlord is bona fide within the meaning of section 141e is a finding on a mixed question of law and fact 
From the above observations it is clear that an inference drawn by the subordinate authorities that the requirement of the respondent was not bonafide could not be regarded as conclusive
The High Court in proper cases has ample jurisdiction to interfere with that finding and record its own conclusions on the basis of the materials on record
We may also point out that in the case before us the position is made worse for the appellant in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the landlord on May 4 1970
We have already pointed out the circumstances under which a finding was called for by the High Court
The High Court has accepted those findings and held in favour of the landlord that he has 1 C A No 2150 of 1966 decided on 26 9 1969
940 made out a case under cl
e of the proviso to section 141 of the Act
Mr Hardev Singh referred us to the decision of this Court reported in Bhagwan Dass and another vs section Rajdev Singh and another1 wherein it has been observed  A second appeal lies to the High Court against the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 392 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 only if the appeal involves some substantial question of law
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal on a consideration of the relevant terms of the agreement and oral evidence and the circumstances found that a clear case of sub letting was established
On that finding no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose
 The first part of the above extract lays down the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under section 392 of the Act
In that decision on facts it was found both by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal on a relevant consideration of the materials on record that a case of sub letting was established
On such a finding concurrently arrived at by both the authorities it was held by this Court that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose for consideration before the High Court
But the facts in the case before us are entirely different
We have already pointed out that the question that fell to be considered by the High Court was whether the claim made by the landlord under cl
e of the proviso to section 141 of the Act was bonafide
As already pointed out this Court in Smt
Kamla Soni vs Rup Lal Mehra1 has held that a finding on such an issue is not one of fact alone but is a finding of mixed question of law and fact and that it was open to the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction under section 392 of the Act to consider the correctness or otherwise of such a finding
The findings recorded on such an issue by the subordinate tribunals are not conclusive
From the above discussion it follows that the High Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction under section 392 of the Act
In consequence the appeal fails and is dismissed
In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs
VPS Appeal dismissed
1 A I R 2 C A No 2150 of 1966 decided on 26 9 1969


Summary:
The respondent who was the landlord of certain premises filed an application under section 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for the eviction of the appellant who was the lessee on the ground inter alia that the respondent required the premises bonafide for his occupation as a residence for himself and his family members
The Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord was not bonafide and dismissed the application
The order was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal
The respondent filed an appeal to the High Court under section 392 of the Act
Before the High Court both parties agreed that the case should be remanded to the Tribunal for a finding on the question whether the premises available with the respondent could be considered to be reasonably suitable residential accommodation  as contemplated by section 141e
On remand the Tribunal reported that the premises in the occupation of the respondent were not reasonably sufficient for the respondent and his family
The appellant however contended before the High Court ignoring this finding of the Tribunal that on the concurrent findings of the two sub ordinate authorities that the landlord s requirement was not bonafide there was no question of law involved and so the High Court had no jurisdiction under section 392 to consider the correctness of those findings
The High Court rejected the contention and held that in view of the finding on remand the decision of the subordinate authorities dismissing the respondent s application was erroneous
In appeal to this Court HELDThis Court in Kamla Soni vs Rup Lal Mehra CA No 2150 of 1966 dated 26 9 1969 held that a finding on the issue whether the requirement of a landlord is bonafide is a finding on mixed questions of law and fact and not on facts only
Therefore it was open to the High Court when exercising jurisdiction under section 392 to consider in proper cases the correctness of such a finding
939E G