SC reverses order in eviction case

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, APRIL 8. The `revisional power' under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh (AP) Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - vested in the High Court (HC) ``cannot be exercised to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the forums below merely on the ground that the HC is inclined to take a different view on the materials on record in the case,'' the Supreme Court has ruled.

The Bench, however, added that it ``should not be understood to be saying that the concurrent findings of fact can in no case be interfered with in revision'' and that ``for such interference it has to be shown that the findings recorded by the forums below suffer from any ``inherent defect'' or are based on ``inadmissible or irrelevant materials'' or are ``so perverse'' that no reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials.

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra, on the facts and circumstances of the case, reversed the verdict of the HC which set aside an order passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the ``eviction order'' by the Rent Controller against the tenant (respondent) in this appeal from the landlady (appellant).

The Bench which included Mr. Shivraj V. Patil, in allowing an appeal, restored an order passed by the Rent Controller dated April 15, 1988, Vizianagaram which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge on June 11, 1997.

``The concurrent findings of fact'' recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority was that the landlady required the premises bona fide for her occupation, the Bench noted.

In the year 1982 when the landlady filed the petition for eviction of the tenant, her son had completed intermediate course and her daughter was studying in the intermediate class. She pleaded that she intended to shift residence from Parvatipuram to Vizianagaram with a view to provide better facilities for higher education to the children.

This case lingered on and when the matter came up before the Appellate Authority, it took note of the fact that the son was studying in the III year Medicine and the daughter was married and living with her husband.

``When the litigation lingers on for years certain factual developments were bound to take place and that all such developments were not necessarily relevant for adjudication of the case,'' the Bench observed.

``While taking note of subsequent developments the authorities/courts should keep in mind whether such material is relevant and can turn the balance in the case,'' the Bench cautioned adding that the ``the controversy should be decided with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the findings placed on record.''

The Bench in this case held that the finding recorded by the HC in the ``revisional proceeding'' amounted ``to taking a view different from those recorded by the forums below on the evidence available on the record.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : WLL system to be operational by May 1
Next     : Gujarat yet to relocate quake victims