Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Based on Bona Fide Need: Kusum Lata Sharma vs. Arvind Singh (25 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 377
Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Can a landlord evict a tenant based on the need of her extended family, even if the property description has minor discrepancies? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of ‘bona fide requirement’ under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court overturned a High Court decision, ruling in favor of the landlord and upholding the eviction orders. This judgment emphasizes that the term ‘family’ should be interpreted broadly and that minor discrepancies in property descriptions should not invalidate a genuine need for accommodation.

Case Background

The case involves two appeals against similar orders from the High Court of Delhi, which had reversed eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. The appellant, Kusum Lata Sharma, sought eviction of her tenants, Arvind Singh and another tenant, from her property, claiming a bona fide need for residential purposes for herself and her extended family. The property in question is located at Majlis Park, Delhi.

The appellant stated that she resided in a joint family with her brother-in-law, his wife, their two unmarried daughters, and one son. She argued that the current accommodation was insufficient for her needs and for her family. The appellant also mentioned that her brother-in-law’s third daughter needed space to start a play school. The tenants, on the other hand, contended that the appellant had other properties and was trying to sell the suit premises for profit.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller initially accepted the appellant’s eviction petitions, finding that she had a genuine need for the property for herself and her family. The Rent Controller considered the appellant’s brother-in-law, his wife, and their children as part of her family, whose needs also had to be considered. The High Court, however, reversed the Rent Controller’s orders, stating that the appellant had not been forthright about the property’s description and the ownership of other properties by her sister-in-law. The High Court held that the appellant had misled the court by not disclosing that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots (C-586 and C-587) and that her sister-in-law also resided in the same building.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the premises are required bona fide for the landlord’s own residence or for any member of their family dependent on them. The relevant part of the provision is:

“14. Protection of tenant against eviction.—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely —
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.”

The judgment also refers to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which outlines the special procedure for eviction applications based on bona fide requirements. This section limits the High Court’s power of revision to ensure the order is “according to law” without allowing a full-fledged appeal. The relevant part of the provision is:

“25-B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.—
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller. The appellant contended that the term “family” should be construed broadly to include relatives and not just those wholly dependent on the landlord. The appellant relied on the decision in Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 549] to support this view.

The respondent argued that the appellant had not correctly described the location of the suit premises and had attempted to mislead the court by concealing facts about the ownership of other properties. The respondent also argued that since the appellant had purchased the property from her brother-in-law, she could not claim a bona fide need for his family members.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. This involved determining if the High Court had exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and whether the appellant had established a bona fide need for the premises.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958 by re-evaluating the factual findings of the Rent Controller. The Court found that the High Court had erred in focusing on minor discrepancies in the property description and had failed to consider the clear evidence of the appellant’s bona fide need for the premises.

Authorities:

• Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. [(2003) 4 SCC 549] – The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the broad interpretation of the term “family,” emphasizing that it includes relatives and not just those wholly dependent on the landlord.
• Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua [(2022) 6 SCC 30] – The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is limited and does not allow for a full-fledged appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the limited revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not re-evaluate factual findings unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a wrong premise of law. The Court also considered the bona fide need of the appellant and her extended family, noting that the term “family” should be interpreted broadly. The Court found that the Rent Controller’s decision was based on valid grounds and with cogent reasons and that there was no need to disturb such findings.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of Section 25-B(8) and the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. However, factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s need for accommodation and the family structure, also influenced the court’s decision (30%).

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the High Court’s reasoning that the appellant had not clearly described the property and had concealed facts about the ownership of other properties. However, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, stating that the discrepancies were minor and did not cause prejudice to the tenants. The Court also noted that the appellant had clarified the property details during cross-examination. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction was limited and did not allow for a full-fledged appeal or re-evaluation of factual findings.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The High Court has examined the copy of site plan filed with the eviction petition and its caption describing it as Property No.C-586 with no reference to Property No.C-587.”

“Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the same with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondents-tenants.”

“Upshot of the discussion is that the findings on bonafide requirement of the appellant in relation to both these cases could not have been disturbed by the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of clarity about identification of the property in question.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the outcome and the reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• The term “family” under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, should be interpreted broadly to include relatives and not just those wholly dependent on the landlord.
• Minor discrepancies in property descriptions should not invalidate a genuine claim for eviction based on bona fide need.
• The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is limited and does not allow for a full-fledged appeal or re-evaluation of factual findings.
• Landlords can seek eviction for the needs of their extended family, provided they demonstrate a genuine requirement.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.2023, subject to the condition that they deposit the entire due rent before the Rent Controller within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The respondents were also required to submit an undertaking before the Rent Controller to continue to make payment of rent/mesne profits and to vacate the suit premises within the time granted.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s revisional power under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is limited and does not allow for a full-fledged appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not re-evaluate the factual findings of the Rent Controller unless there is a clear error of law or procedure. This judgment reinforces the principle that the term “family” should be interpreted broadly to include relatives and that minor discrepancies in property descriptions should not invalidate a genuine claim for eviction based on bona fide need.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders and restoring the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. The Court emphasized the limited scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction and the broad interpretation of the term “family” under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The judgment clarifies that minor discrepancies in property descriptions should not invalidate a genuine claim for eviction based on bona fide need.