Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2018
The Supreme Court of India addressed a case regarding the eviction of tenants from shops claimed to be in a dilapidated condition. The core issue was whether the landlord had sufficiently proven that the premises were unsafe and uninhabitable, thus justifying eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The Court, after reviewing the evidence, upheld the lower courts’ decisions, finding no perversity in their conclusions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The appellant, Surinder, owned premises in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, where several shops were constructed in the mid-1960s by his father. These shops were let out to the respondents, including Nand Lal, who were tenants. The appellant sought to evict the tenants, claiming the shops were in a dilapidated condition and unsafe for habitation. The appellant argued that the shops, built of mud, were unsafe and required reconstruction, which necessitated the tenants’ eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The tenants disputed the claim, asserting that the premises were fit for habitation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mid-1960s | Shops constructed by the appellant’s father in Bahadurgarh, Haryana. |
| Prior to 2006 | Shops let out to the respondents. |
| March 10, 2006 | Expert report (Exhibit P-2) by the appellant’s engineer, PW-3, stating the shops were dilapidated. |
| April 30, 2010 | Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions, finding the premises were not dilapidated. |
| 2012 | Chhajja of the premises fell down while the appeal was pending. |
| September 17, 2012 | Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge) dismissed the appeals, upholding the Rent Controller’s decision. |
| July 9, 2015 | High Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the lower courts’ findings. |
| January 18, 2018 | Supreme Court heard the appeal. |
| February 1, 2018 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed eviction petitions before the Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, which were dismissed after the Rent Controller determined that the shops were not in a dilapidated condition. The appellant then appealed to the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, which also dismissed the appeals. Subsequently, the appellant filed revision petitions before the High Court, which were also dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, stating that no ground for interference with the factual findings was made out.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. Section 13 of the Act specifies the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. One such ground is if the premises are in a dilapidated condition and cannot be repaired or reconstructed without evicting the tenant. The relevant portion of the Act states:
“Section 13. Eviction of tenants.—(1) A tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied—
…
(c) that the building is in such a condition that it is unsafe or unfit for human habitation and is required by the landlord for reconstruction;…”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the expert report (Exhibit P-2) of the engineer (PW-3) clearly showed that the shops were in a dilapidated condition. The report detailed cracks in the walls, eroded plaster, dampness, and a deflected roof projection, indicating the shops were unsafe.
- The appellant contended that the lower courts had erred by relying on the report of the respondent’s expert (RW-4), which did not address the structural issues but only commented on the photographs of the roof and flooring.
- The appellant further argued that the subsequent event of the Chhajja falling down in 2012, while the appeal was pending, proved that the premises were indeed in a dilapidated condition and unsafe. They submitted that this event was not considered by the Appellate Authority or the High Court.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the expert (RW-4) had inspected the premises and found them to be in good condition.
- The respondents also relied on the fact that the appellant had not repaired or white-washed the shops since they were let out, suggesting that the alleged dilapidation was due to neglect.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Premises are in dilapidated condition | Expert report (PW-3) detailed structural issues | Appellant |
| Chhajja fell down in 2012 | Appellant | |
| Report of RW-4 did not address structural issues | Appellant | |
| Premises not in dilapidated condition | Expert (RW-4) found premises in good condition | Respondent |
| Appellant did not repair or white-wash the shops | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue before the Court was whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision petition, thereby affirming the decisions of the lower courts that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the premises were in a dilapidated condition | The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, stating that the Rent Controller had examined the expert evidence and photographs and found that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition. The Court found no perversity in this view. |
| Whether the subsequent event of the Chhajja falling down should be considered | The Court noted that the appellant did not produce material to support the claim that this event was brought to the notice of the lower courts. Additionally, the judgments of the lower courts did not reflect that this contention was raised. Therefore, the Court did not consider this alleged subsequent event. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any authorities in this judgment. It primarily relied on the factual findings of the lower courts and the evidence presented by the parties.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 | The Court used Section 13 of the Act to determine the grounds for eviction, specifically the condition of the premises. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Expert report (PW-3) showed dilapidated condition | The Court noted that the Rent Controller had examined the expert evidence and found that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition. |
| Report of RW-4 did not address structural issues | The Court did not explicitly address this, but upheld the findings of the lower courts that relied on RW-4’s report. |
| Chhajja fell down in 2012 | The Court did not consider this event as there was no material on record to show that this was brought to the notice of the lower courts. |
| Expert (RW-4) found premises in good condition | The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that relied on RW-4’s report. |
| Appellant did not repair or white-wash the shops | The Court did not explicitly address this, but it was a factor considered by the Rent Controller in his findings. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 | The Court used the Act to determine the grounds for eviction, specifically the condition of the premises, and found that the appellant had not met the requirements for eviction under the Act. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Rent Controller had examined the expert evidence and photographs and concluded that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition. The Appellate Authority and the High Court upheld this finding. The Supreme Court found no perversity in these findings and thus did not interfere with the lower courts’ decisions. The Court also noted the lack of evidence that the subsequent event of the Chhajja falling down was brought to the notice of the lower courts. The Court emphasized that its revisionary jurisdiction was limited and that it could not interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts unless they were perverse.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Concurrent findings of lower courts | 60% |
| Lack of evidence for subsequent event | 30% |
| Limited revisionary jurisdiction | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Rent Controller examines expert reports and photos
Rent Controller finds premises not dilapidated
Appellate Authority upholds Rent Controller’s decision
High Court dismisses revision petition
Supreme Court finds no perversity, upholds lower courts
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that when lower courts have made concurrent findings of fact, the higher court should not interfere unless there is a clear error or perversity in the findings. The Court stated that the Rent Controller had examined the evidence and the reports of the experts, and had come to a plausible conclusion. The Court also noted that the appellant had not provided any evidence to show that the subsequent event was brought to the notice of the lower courts. The Court stated that it did not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the lower courts.
The Supreme Court quoted from the High Court’s order:
“In the present case, petitioner had sought ejectment of respondent No.1 from the shop in question on the ground that it had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In this regard, petitioner examined his expert. Respondent No.1 also examined his expert to establish that the premises in question was fit for human habitation. The Courts below after going through the reports of the expert and the photographs, placed on record, came to the conclusion that the premises in question was fit for human habitation. In fact, the shop in question had not been got repaired by the petitioner.”
The Supreme Court also noted that:
“We find that the view taken was plausible view which cannot be considered as perverse. The revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and, therefore, it rightly observed that no ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below was made out.”
Regarding the subsequent event, the Court observed:
“Insofar as the contention of the appellant based on alleged subsequent event is concerned, except arguing that it was taken before the appellate court as well as the High Court, no material is produced to support this submission. Grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority or the copy of the revision petition has not been placed on record. Moreover, judgments of the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court do not reflect that such a contention was raised before the said courts. In the absence thereof, the alleged subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with unless there is a clear error or perversity.
- Landlords seeking eviction on grounds of dilapidated premises must provide clear and convincing evidence to support their claim.
- Subsequent events must be properly presented and documented before the lower courts to be considered in appellate proceedings.
- The burden of proof lies with the landlord to demonstrate that the premises are unsafe and unfit for habitation.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that if the condition of the premises is currently dilapidated, the appellant is free to file a fresh eviction petition based on the current condition of the premises as it would furnish a fresh cause of action.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the condition of the premises. The Court reiterated that it will not interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts unless there is a clear error or perversity. There was no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court found no perversity in the lower courts’ findings that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition. The Court also noted that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim of a subsequent event that would prove the premises were in a dilapidated condition. The Supreme Court clarified that the appellant could file a fresh petition if the premises are currently in a dilapidated condition, thus providing a fresh cause of action.
Category
Parent Category: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Child Category: Section 13, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Parent Category: Property Law
Child Category: Landlord and Tenant Disputes
Parent Category: Civil Law
Child Category: Eviction
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the landlord could evict tenants based on the claim that the rented shops were in a dilapidated condition and unsafe for habitation under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, finding that the landlord had not sufficiently proven that the premises were dilapidated. The Court dismissed the appeals.
Q: What evidence did the landlord present?
A: The landlord presented an expert report stating that the shops had cracks, eroded plaster, and dampness. The landlord also claimed that the Chhajja had fallen down, indicating the unsafe condition of the premises.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court not consider the Chhajja falling down?
A: The Supreme Court did not consider this event because the landlord did not provide evidence that this was brought to the notice of the lower courts.
Q: What does this case mean for landlords?
A: Landlords must provide clear and convincing evidence to prove that a property is dilapidated and unsafe to evict tenants. They must also ensure that all evidence is presented properly before the lower courts.
Q: What does this case mean for tenants?
A: Tenants have the right to remain in their rented premises unless the landlord can prove they are unsafe and unfit for habitation. The burden of proof lies with the landlord.