SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 533 of 2001. D/d. 12.1.2001

S. Govindan (D) By Lrs. - Appellant

Versus

N. Govindan - Respondent

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20 - Suit for ejectment of tenant - High Court reversed the order of eviction in revision on reasoning unless - Order passed without appreciation of evidence cannot be sustained in law - High Court order quashed and case remanded for fresh disposal.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

S.N. Phukan, J. - Leave is granted.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of the erstwhile landlord of the premises and the respondent is the tenant. In the view we have taken to do not consider it necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the High Court in the revision filed by the tenant, reversed the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Court giving the following reasons :-

"..........The documents produced by the petitioner will show that he has been in possession of the premises even before 1st February, 1985. If that is so, unless it is proved that there was a tenancy agreement orally or in writing between the petitioner and respondent, there could not be any relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Since the authorities below had not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, those orders cannot be sustained in law..........."

4. From a perusal of the above excerpt of the order of the High Court, we cannot but hold that the reasoning is far from being satisfactory and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the order under challenge, remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal and in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.