Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Eviction Rights: Abid-ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 7, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 369
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Can a High Court, while exercising its revisional powers, overturn a Rent Controller’s order on eviction merely by re-evaluating facts? The Supreme Court, in this case, addresses the extent of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The core issue revolves around a landlord’s plea for eviction based on personal necessity and whether the High Court can interfere with the Rent Controller’s findings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between Abid-ul-Islam (the appellant), claiming ownership through inheritance and an award, and Inder Sain Dua (the respondent), a tenant. The original owner, Shri Haji Badrul Islam, had leased two shops to the respondent in 1970. After the original owner’s death, his son, Shri Sajid-Ul-Islam, became the owner, followed by the appellant after Shri Sajid-Ul-Islam’s demise. In 2014, the appellant filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking to evict the respondent for personal use. The respondent contested the eviction, claiming the appellant lacked title, the property was under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and the appellant had alternative accommodations. The Rent Controller dismissed the respondent’s application, but the High Court allowed the revision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller dismissed the respondent’s application for leave to defend, stating that the tenant could not question the landlord’s title, the alternative accommodation claims were vague, and the Enemy Property Act did not apply. The Rent Controller also discussed the appellant’s bona fide need. The respondent then approached the High Court of Delhi, invoking the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The High Court, despite acknowledging the respondent’s inability to challenge the appellant’s title, allowed the revision. It reasoned that there were triable issues regarding the vagueness of the appellant’s denial of alternative accommodation.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Key provisions include:

• Section 14(1)(e): This section outlines the grounds for eviction, allowing a landlord to recover possession of premises if they are required bona fide for their own residence or that of a family member, and if the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The section states:
  
  “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.”
• Section 19: This section deals with the recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry, ensuring that landlords use the premises for the intended purpose after eviction.
• Section 25B: This section provides a special procedure for eviction applications based on bona fide requirements. It includes a summary trial and restricts appeals, with a proviso allowing the High Court to review the record to ensure the order is “according to law.” The section states:
  “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

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court’s jurisdiction is limited, and its decision, made without specific findings on the Rent Controller’s reasoning, is an overreach.
• The respondent, as a tenant, cannot dictate which property the landlord should use, especially when the landlord has clearly stated their possession.
• The appellant denied ownership of the alternate properties mentioned by the respondent.
• The proceedings under the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, were without jurisdiction, especially after the earlier inquiry was closed.
• The respondent’s attempt to implead himself in proceedings challenging subsequent notices was rejected by the High Court for lack of bona fides, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court.

The appellant relied on the following judgments:

• Anil Bajaj and Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 15 SCC 610
• Balwant Singh alias Bant Singh and Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar and Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 114

Respondent’s Submissions:

• There are triable issues, justifying the High Court’s decision to allow the revision.
• The appellant’s title is under a cloud, as some owners reside in Pakistan.
• The award obtained on 11.03.1980 is questionable.
• The authority under the Amended Act recognizes the respondent as its tenant.
• The appellant possesses alternative accommodations suitable for their business.

The respondent relied on the following judgments:

• M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors. (1981) 3 SCC 36
• P.V . Papanna and Ors. v. K. Padmanabhaiah (1994) 2 SCC 316
• Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain (1986) 4 SCC 736
• D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish (1987) 4 SCC424
• Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva (1982) 3 SCC 270
• Liaq Ahmed and Ors. v. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (2000) 5 SCC 708
• India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and Ors. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 178
• Gram Panchayat v. Ujagar Singh and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 543

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue that the court addressed was:

• What is the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, specifically concerning the High Court’s power of revision against an order of the Rent Controller?
• Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating the facts and substituting its views for that of the Rent Controller?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• On the scope of Section 14(1)(e) and 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
  • Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 706 – Explained the summary trial procedure and the burden on the tenant to raise triable issues.
  • Anil Bajaj and Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610 – Clarified that a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord uses their property.
  • Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778 – Explained the summary nature of the procedure under Section 25B.
  • Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India, (2020) 12 SCC 506 – Interpreted the burden on the tenant to rebut the landlord’s claim at the leave to defend stage.
• On the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8):
  • Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 – Defined the High Court’s power as supervisory, not appellate, and emphasized that the High Court cannot re-evaluate facts unless the findings are wholly unreasonable.
  • Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, (2020) 7 SCC 327 – Reaffirmed the limited scope of the High Court’s revisional powers.
  • Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141] – Held that the High Court can examine facts to see if the Rent Controller approached the matter on a firm legal basis.
  • Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury [AIR 1963 SC 698 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 933] – Explained that the High Court’s power is to ensure the decision is “according to law”.
  • Malini Ayyappa Naicker v. Seth Manghraj Udhavadas [(1969) 1 SCC 688] – Provided a list of instances where the High Court can interfere under revisional jurisdiction.
• On the concept of “bona fide requirement”:
  • Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander [(1988) 3 SCC 131] – Explained that the bona fide need should be genuine and honest.
  • Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan [(1979) 1 SCC 273] – Held that the “reasonable requirement” must be a need as opposed to a mere desire.
  • Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India [(1991) 2 SCC 87] – Stated that every claim for eviction must be a bona fide one.
  • Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] – Explained that the “felt need” should be a sincere and honest desire.
• Legal Provisions:
  • Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
  • Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
  • Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Judgment

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the limitations it places on the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s role is to ensure that the Rent Controller’s order is “according to law,” not to re-evaluate the facts unless the findings are wholly unreasonable. The Court also reiterated the principle that a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord uses their property and that a landlord’s bona fide need for eviction must be given due consideration.

The Court rejected the respondent’s arguments that there were triable issues, finding that the respondent’s claims were vague and unsubstantiated. The Court also noted that the respondent’s attempt to question the appellant’s title was not permissible.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The proviso creates a distinct and unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an application filed under sub-section (5). The intendment of the legislature is very clear, which is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter, a further second appeal.”
• “The High Court, while ignoring the aforesaid conduct of the respondent, as noted by the learned Rent Controller, proceeded to allow the revision by treating it like an appeal. It did not even reverse the findings of the learned Rent Controller, but proceeded to hold that the denials of the appellant in his reply to the application seeking leave to defend are vague, qua the plea of alternative accommodation, notwithstanding the rejection of the contention of the respondent that he cannot question the title. This approach, in our considered view, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.”
• “We are constrained to note that the respondent continued to drop the names of persons holding high offices even before us. He proudly proclaimed during his argument that the proceedings under the Enemy Property Act, as amended, were initiated only at his instance on his personally meeting with an Hon’ble Union Minister. We can only adopt the process undertaken by the learned Rent Controller by not letting the said statement come in the way of deciding the matter on merits, despite it being unconscionable and shockingly brazen.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s revisional power under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is limited to ensuring the Rent Controller’s order is “according to law.”
• High Courts cannot re-evaluate facts unless the Rent Controller’s findings are wholly unreasonable.
• Tenants cannot dictate how a landlord uses their property.
• Landlords’ bona fide needs for eviction must be given due consideration.
• Tenants must raise substantial triable issues to be granted leave to defend in eviction cases under Section 25B.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. No further directions were given.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not contain any specific analysis of any amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendiof this judgment clarifies the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It reinforces the principle that the High Court’s power is supervisory, not appellate, and that it cannot re-evaluate facts unless the findings of the Rent Controller are wholly unreasonable. This judgment has further strengthened the rights of landlords to seek eviction for their bona fide needs while ensuring that tenants are not unduly harassed.