VINOD KUMAR ARORA versus SMT. SURJIT KAUR

VINOD KUMAR ARORA versus SMT. SURJIT KAUR

The findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority regarding bona fide requirement and change in user were based on non-existent or fictitious material, not facts; hence, they lack binding force on the High Court. Eviction is justified as the respondent's need for the hall is bona fide and the statutory embargo on conversion of user without consent cannot be bypassed by pleading acquiescence. Proceedings against both tenants were initiated concurrently, so the statutory bar against repeating eviction on the same ground does not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Vinod Kumar Arora; Respondent: Smt. Surjit Kaur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 July 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 2227 of 1984
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Concurrent Findings, Revision Powers, Change in User, Bona Fide Requirement
Landlord and Tenant Rent Control Civil Procedure Eviction Concurrent Findings Revision Powers Change in User Bona Fide Requirement

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinod Kumar Arora

Appellant

Smt. Surjit Kaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 2227 of 1984

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of statutory authorities on bona fide requirement for eviction
  2. 2 Whether findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are binding on revisional court despite being vitiated
  3. 3 Whether tenant can claim statutory protection after converting residential premises to non-residential without consent

Ratio Decidendi

The findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority regarding bona fide requirement and change in user were based on non-existent or fictitious material, not facts; hence, they lack binding force on the High Court. Eviction is justified as the respondent's need for the hall is bona fide and the statutory embargo on conversion of user without consent cannot be bypassed by pleading acquiescence. Proceedings against both tenants were initiated concurrently, so the statutory bar against repeating eviction on the same ground does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to vacate premises by 31.10.1987 after filing undertaking within three weeks; failing which, respondent entitled to recover possession in terms of High Court judgment and decree.
  • Parties to bear respective costs.