ATMA S. BERAR versus MUKHTIAR SINGH

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. S. Berar

Appellant

Mukhtiar Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From High Court's Revisional Order

  1. 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.