Case: Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha and Others Vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan and Another

ds filed an ejectment suit against defendant 1 (the tenant) and defendant 2 (allegedly unlawfulseeking possession of the suit godown on two grounds (i) that the suit godown was required bona fide for their own occupation and (ii) that defendant 1 had unlawfullythe premises to defendant 2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the landlords need was not bona fide and that defendant 2 had been let in possession of the suit godown as ain March 1959 and as such was protected under Ordinance 3 of 1959. The trial court decreed the suit upholding both the grounds put forward by the landlords. The matter was carried in appeal by defendant 2 alone and in appeal the finding with regard to bona fide requirement was reversed but the finding of unlawfulwas confirmed and the decree for eviction was upheld. The appellant court, agreeing with the trial court, held that thewas after May 21, 1959, being the relevant date under Ordinance 3 of 1959. Defendant 2 preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the High Court and the High Court surprisingly on reappreciation of the material on the record reversed the concurrent finding of both the lower courts as regards the actual date ofand it came to the conclusion that there wasin favour of defendant 2 in March 1959 and as such he was protected under Ordinance 3 of 1959. The landlords have preferred this appeal to this Court.

Reasoning:
5. Counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohd. Shafi case (Mohd. Shafi v. VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, AIR 1977 SC 836  : (1977) 2 SCC 226  : (1977) 2 SCR 464 ) but in our view the same cannot avail the respondent. The question that arose there was whether Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was attracted to that case and that depended upon the applicability to the facts of the correct interpretation of the Explanation and that was clearly a mixed question of law and fact and this Court held that if the High Court found that in reaching its conclusion on this question the District Court proceeded on a wrong interpretation of the Explanation the High Court could correct the error and set aside the conclusion reached by the District Court.