Judgment Case ID: 1395

Judgment:
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. 5	000 to Rs. 10	000 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. 20	000 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 15(5) 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 s.16(4) 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 s.15(5) 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 13(3) (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 (iii)in 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 15(5) 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 15(5) 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 15(5) 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.