ATMA S. BERAR versus MUKHTIAR SINGH
The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for his own use, as the subsequent events cited did not affect the genuineness or necessity of the landlord's need. The revisional jurisdiction was not meant to substitute its own view on facts validated by lower authorities.
- Parties
- Appellant: A. S. Berar; Respondent: Mukhtiar Singh
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court's Revisional Order
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Eviction of Tenant, Revisional Jurisdiction, Requirement of Landlord, Subsequent Events
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A. S. Berar
Appellant
Mukhtiar Singh
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court's Revisional Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with findings of fact regarding landlord's bona fide requirement for own occupation under Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the basis of subsequent events during the pendency of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for his own use, as the subsequent events cited did not affect the genuineness or necessity of the landlord's need. The revisional jurisdiction was not meant to substitute its own view on facts validated by lower authorities.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the High Court set aside.
- Order of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority restored.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment