SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1999. D/d. 19.4.2000

Abdul Gaffer - Appellant

Versus

H.S. Srinivasa Setty (Dead) By Lrs. - Respondents

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1969, Sections 21(1)(h) and 50(2) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 115 - Eviction suit on ground of bonafide requirement - Suit decreed - Revision by tenant allowed - Revision before High Court by landlord under Section 115 of C.P.C. - Tenant filed application pleading subsequent events - Revision allowed - Appeal by tenant - Appellant contended that High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence - Supreme Court held that District Judge found that tenant would suffer greater hardship in event of eviction - High Court not be permitted to interfere with - Order of High Court set aside - Matter remitted back to High Court.

[Para 4]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - The appellant is the tenant in a non-residential premises in the city of Hassan, Karnataka, whereas the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed a suit before the Munsiff, Hassan for eviction of the appellant herein on the ground of bonafide need set up for his son, who wanted to start the business of chemist and druggist. It was contested by the appellant. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit having found the need of the landlord as bonafide. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Judge, Hassan. Sub-section (2) of Section 50 reads as under:

"50. (2) The District Judge may, at any time call for and examine any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of Munsiff referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 3 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. The order of the District Judge shall be final."

2. The learned District Judge after considering the matter found that the need of the landlord was not bonafide and on comparative hardship he also found in favour of the tenant. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Munsiff was set aside. The landlord thereafter filed a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is not disputed by the parties that the revision was maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Before the High Court, the appellant herein filed an application pleading certain subsequent events after filing the suit by the respondent. The subsequent event pleaded was that the adjacent shop to the premises in dispute, which was earlier occupied by Karnataka Bank, had fallen vacant and, therefore, the need of the landlord stands satisfied. The allegation pleaded by the tenant was disputed by the landlord. The High Court in exercise of revisional power after reappreciating the evidence found the need of the landlord as bonafide and the plea of comparative hardship was also found in his favour. However, the High Court, in view of the subsequent events pleaded by the tenant, set aside the revisional order and sent the case back to the trial court for inquiry into that aspect and consequently the revision was allowed. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.

3. This Court, while issuing notice, indicated as to why the impugned order should not be set aside being outside the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Learned counsel for the appellant urged that it was not open to the High Court in exercise of revisional power under Section 115 to reappreciate the evidence and set aside the finding of fact recorded by the District Judge that the need of the landlord is not bonafide. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that since the learned District Judge has not looked into the various aspects of the matter, the High Court was justified in interfering with this finding of fact recorded by the District Judge.

4. We have perused the record and find that the District Judge has recorded a categorical fact based on appreciation of evidence that the need of the landlord was neither bonafide nor genuine. On comparative hardship, learned District Judge found that the tenant would suffer greater hardship in the event of eviction from the premises. This, in our view, was a pure finding of fact, which was not permissible for the High Court to interfere with. However, we are in agreement with the High Court that the bonafide need of the landlord could be tested in the light of subsequent events pleaded by the tenant, if found correct.

5. Consequently, we set aside the judgment and order under appeal and send the case back to the High Court for deciding the revision in accordance with law.

6. The appeal is allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs.

.