Holding

The High Court erred in overturning the Rent Controller’s order as it exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 25‑B(8); the appellant’s description of the property was not a material flaw and the bona‑fide requirement stood affirmed.

Summary

The appellant, a widowed landlord, filed eviction petitions under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises to accommodate her joint family. The Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered eviction, but the Delhi High Court reversed the order, alleging that the appellant had misdescribed the property and failed to disclose other accommodations. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the pleadings, site plan, and cross‑examination, finding that the appellant had clearly described the extent of the accommodation and that any other family properties did not prejudice her claim. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 25‑B(8) by re‑evaluating factual findings on a vague ground of misdescription. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s revision orders and restored the Rent Controller’s eviction orders, granting the tenants time to vacate and pay due rent. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the appellant's description of the suit premises and whether it amounted to a material misdescription under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to disturb the Rent Controller's factual findings on bona‑fide requirement under the limited scope of Section 25‑B(8).
Whether the existence of other properties owned by the appellant or her family negates the claim of bona‑fide requirement.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 25-B(8)

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementDelhi Rent Control Actmisdescription of propertylimited jurisdictionSection 25-B(8)revision petitionlandlord‑tenant

Judgment

[2023] 4 S.C.R. 493 493

KUSUM LATA SHARMA A
v.
ARVIND SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3111 of 2023)
APRIL 25, 2023 B
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction
– Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seeking
to evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement –
C
Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On revision,
the High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller on the
ground that appellant had not been forthright in the description of
the property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner
and the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed
– On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings along D
with the site plan attached, it makes evident that the appellant gave
out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available
in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her
occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement – Appellant
had further made position clear in her cross-examination – Thus, it
E
is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the
property – The material placed on record indicate that the appellant
and other members of the family might be having title or interest in
some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate
against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been
accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent F
reasons – Judgment of High Court set aside and the orders of Rent
Controller restored.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – s.25-B(8) – Limited jurisdiction
under – Held: In terms of the proviso to s.25-B(8), a limited window
is allowed to the extent that the High Court may call for the record, G
for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order had been passed
in accordance with law – Pure finding of fact is not open for
interference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of
law.
H
493
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD. 1. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the
same with the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any
such misdescription of the property which would amount to a
material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have
B caused prejudice to the respondent’s tenants. [Para 18][509-G-
H]
2. Noteworthy, it is that it had not been the case of the
respondents that they were not the tenants in the premises in
question. The only attempt on the part of the respondents had
C been to suggest that other properties and accommodations were
available with the family. Such suggestion on the part of
respondents had not been accepted by the Rent Controller as
operating against the assertion of bona fide requirement of the
appellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentially
been the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record.
D There was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague
ground of want of clarity about description of the property in
question. [Para 19][510-A-C]
3. The appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other
referred members of the family might be having title or interest
E in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly
operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had
been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with
cogent reasons. [Para 22][510-E]
4. The findings on bonafide requirement of the appellant in
F relation to both these cases could not have been disturbed by
the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of
clarity about identification of the property in question. [Para
23][510-F]
Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 549 :
G [2003] 2 SCR 580; Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua
(2022) 6 SCC 30 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 2 SCR 580 referred to Para 5
H (2022) 6 SCC 30 referred to Para 9
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 495

A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3111 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in RCREV No. 78 of 2015.
B
With
Civil Appeal No. 3112 of 2023.
Vinay Kr. Garg, Sr. Adv., Sagar Saxena, Rajeev Maheshwaranand
Roy, Advs. for the Appellant.
C
Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Debabrata Dash, Apoorva
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted. D

2. These appeals are directed against similar orders dated
17.04.2018, as passed in RC. REV. No. 78 of 2015 and RC. REV. No.
80 of 2015 respectively, whereby a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 has allowed the revision petitions filed by
the respective tenants and has reversed the similar orders dated E
21.11.2014, as passed in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and
03 of 2011 by the Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini,
Delhi2. These appeals, involving similar and common issues, have been
considered together and taken up for disposal by this common judgment.3
3. The learned Rent Controller, in the similar orders dated F
21.11.2014, had accepted the petitions for eviction filed by the present
appellant against the respective tenants, on the ground of her bona fide
requirement. However, in the impugned orders dated 17.04.2018, the
High Court has reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, essentially
on the ground that the appellant-landlord had not been forthright in G
1
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the High Court’.
2
Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’.
3
It may be pointed that in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 31550 of 2018 (relating
to RC. REV. No. 80 of 2015 before the High Court), the respondent-tenant had expired
during the pendency of the petition in this Court and after setting aside abatement, his
legal representatives were brought on record by the order dated 09.12.2019. H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A description of the property in question and had taken the pleadings in a
misleading manner about the facts concerning right, title and interest of
the wife of his brother-in-law in the property in question and about the
fact that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots as a common
superstructure.
B 4. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the short point arising
for determination in these appeals is as to whether the High Court has
been justified in reversing the respective orders of eviction. The factual
aspects pertaining to both these cases lie in a narrow compass and could
be noticed as follows:
C 4.1. In the petition bearing No. 02 of 2011, the appellant sought
eviction of the respondent-tenant with the averments that the respondent
was inducted as tenant by her predecessor in the year 1995 at the rent
of Rs. 1200/- per month in one room on the first floor of the property
bearing No. C-586, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi – 110033. The
appellant also stated that the current monthly rent of the suit premises
D was Rs. 2100/- but, the tenant had not paid the rent since 01.06.2010.
4.2. The description of the property by the appellant in her petitions
seeking eviction has formed the basis of the view of the High Court
about want of forthrightness on her part. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the relevant parts of the pleadings taken by
E the appellant in that regard, which read as under: -
“18. (a) The grounds on which the eviction of the tenant is sought:-
i) Petitioner and her family are presently residing in the ground
floor of aforesaid property and the accommodation presently
F available with the petitioner is totally insufficient for them and for
the family members, who are dependent upon them for their
residence. Petitioner resides in a joint family which comprises of
her husband’s real brother (=Brother in law), his wife, 2 unmarried
daughters, 1 married daughter and 1 son and she considers family
of her brother in law as her own family. Entire family of the
G petitioner needs at least 5 bed rooms, 2 drawing rooms, 2 kitchen,
3 toilets, 3 bathrooms, 1 pooja room, 1 guest room, 1 verandah
and a servant quarter. Petitioner also requires two rooms with 1
toilet, kitchen and verandah for opening of ‘Play-way’ by third
daughter of her brother in law, Ms. Charu Sharma. However,
accommodation presently available with the petitioner is only 2
H
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 497
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens, 2 latrine/bathroom, 2 small A
store rooms, 1 pooja room and one verandah on the ground floor
and 1 room each on the first and second floor which is grossly
insufficient. Married daughter of brother in law of the petitioner
and other close relatives of the petitioner keep visiting the petitioner
and wants to stay with her out of love and affection for reasonable
B
period, however due to lack of accommodation, they cannot stay.
In such and other circumstances as detailed herein below petitioner
is filing the present eviction petition for bonafide requirements.
Further, the construction of the whole premises is very old and in
dilapidated condition and needs urgent repairs and during the rainy
season, the petitioner and her family has to suffer immense C
hardship as there is water logging on the ground floor and life of
the petitioner and her family is thrown out of gear. Further, all the
furnitures and fixtures are damaged during rainy season. Petitioner
and her family members have to move all their belongings elsewhere
during rainy season. Even petitioner and D
her family members have to leave their home and go to their
relatives place during rainy season.
Moreover, petitioner is a senior citizen and widow lady and the
respondent and his family constantly misbehave and abuse the
petitioner. E

ii) As stated above, front portion of property bearing no. C- 586/
587, Gall No. 12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 comprises of only
ground floor and is having 2 bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens,
2 latrine/bathroom, 2 small store rooms, 1 pooja room and one
court yard and petitioner is presently having the aforesaid F
accommodation in her possession. Apart from the above, out of 3
rooms on the first floor and 3 rooms on the second floor, 1 room
each on the first floor and second floor are in the possession of
the petitioner.
iii) Petitioner submits that aforesaid accommodation which is G
presently available with her is totally insufficient.
As stated above, family of petitioner comprises of her
husband’s real brother, his 2 unmarried daughters, 1 married
daughter and 1 son and petitioner considers family of her husband’s
brother as her own family. The eldest daughter of her husband’s H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A brother is Ms. Nisha who is married and is having one son aged
about 2 years and lives separately, second daughter is Ms. Renu
Sharma aged about 28 years and is unmarried, third daughter is
aged about 25 years and studying in B.Com 3 rd year
(correspondence) from Delhi University and one son namely
Master Govind Sharma who is aged about 16 years and studying
B
in 10th class in A.G. DAV School, Model Town, Delhi. Documents
regarding residential proof of petitioner and her family members
are filed herewith as Annexure “P-1” (colly).”
4.3. The appellant took several other averments on her requirement,
including the lack of accommodation for herself as also for the wife and
C children of her brother-in-law. Along with the petition seeking eviction,
the appellant appended a site plan of the property carrying the caption in
the following terms: -
“Site plan of Property No. C-586, Gali No. 12,13, Majlis Park,
Delhi – 110033.”
D
4.4. The respondent-tenant filed his written statement denying the
assertions of bona fide requirement of the appellant while stating, inter
alia, that the appellant wanted to sell out the suit premises to earn profit;
her husband had expired 8-10 years back and she had no issues of her
own; and there was no need of extra accommodation. It was also averred
E that the petition did not fall under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-
B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19584, particularly when the appellant
did not disclose all the facts concerning possession of other properties
bearing No. 588, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park; No. C-603, Gali No. 13,
Majlis Park; and No. E-591, Gali No. 12, Majlis Park.
F 4.5. In evidence, the appellant asserted the facts stated in her
petition. She was cross-examined extensively with questions pertaining
to the properties belonging to herself, her brother-in-law (husband’s
brother) and wife of her brother-in-law, particularly concerning the
property bearing No. C-587 as also those pertaining to the accommodation
G available in the suit property. The relevant parts of the statement made
by her in cross- examination could be usefully extracted as under: -
“xxx xxx xxx
The building in which the suit property is situated is consisting
4
H Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1958’.
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 499
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

of ground, first and second floor. It is correct that I reside on the A
ground floor.
It is correct that my brother in law Prem Kumar Sharma
was the owner of property no. C-588, Gali No.12, Majlis Park,
Azadpur, Delhi. It is also correct that my brother in law Prem
Kumar Sharma sold the said property to Smt. Sudesh Rani on B
23.06.2010 for Rs.16 Lakhs. It is correct that said property was
sold vide sale deed Ex.PW1/R1.
(objected by counsel for petitioner stating the same is
photocopy. Heard. The objection shall be decided at the stage of
final arguments) C
It is correct that Smt. Geeta Sharma is wife of my brother
in law Prem Kumar Sharma. It is correct that Smt. Geeta Sharma
is owner of property bearing No. C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park,
Azadpur, Delhi. Smt. Geeta Sharma herself is residing in property
bearing No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. Voltd. D
One building is constructed on the plot No. 586 and 587 and me
and my sister in law Geeta Sharma are residing in the said one
building as one family.
It is also correct that Smt. Geeta Sharma was also the owner
of property bearing No. C-600, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, E
Delhi. It is correct that in the year 2008 a tenant namely Ashok
Kumar was in the said property No. C-600. It is correct to suggest
that the said property was sold by Geeta Sharma after getting the
same evicted. Voltd. The half of the plot in the house constructed
on the said plot No.C-600 was demolished due to widening of the
road and therefore we got the same evicted and sold the same. F
xxx xxx xxx
The building, in which the suit property is situated having
three rooms, two stores, two kitchens, one pooja room and WC &
Bath alongwith verandah on the ground floor; the first floor also
G
consists of three rooms constructed on back portion of the first
floor; and second floor also consists of three rooms constructed
on back portion of the second floor.
The respondent is a tenant in a room on first floor. The
tenant Ghansar Singh is tenant in one room on first floor and one
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A room on second floor. It is correct that there was a tenant namely
Ram Kewal in one room on second floor. It is also correct that I
had filed an eviction petition against Ram Kewal alongwith present
two eviction petitions against the tenants. It is also correct that
Ram Kewal has vacated the said room and has given its possession
to me.
B
xxx xxx xxx
I do not have any residential accommodation except the
suit property. Along with me, my brother in law and his wife two
daughters and one son are residing in the suit property. I prepare
C the food along with other family members in one kitchen. The
second kitchen which I have stated as before is being used as a
store as I am sharing the food with my brother in laws family.
One property bearing no. 587 belongs to my brother in law, it is
adjoining to the suit property and the accommodation as I have
stated is under both the property which are jointly constructed...
D
xxx xxx xxx”
4.6. The appellant led further evidence in support of her case and
her brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece and nephew were also examined
as PW-2 to PW-5 respectively, who were duly cross-examined by the
E respondents.
4.7. The respondent, in his evidence, denied the allegations of
lack of accommodation with the appellant and the alleged requirement
of the suit premises.
5. In the order dated 21.11.2014, after thoroughly examining the
F material on record, the learned Rent Controller observed that the appellant
was residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law and the
wife, two unmarried daughters and son of her brother-in-law and
proceeded to hold that the assertions about bona fide requirement of the
appellant were duly established. While referring to a decision of this
Court in the case of Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan & Anr.: (2003) 4
G
SCC 549, the Rent Controller also observed that the question of bona
fide requirement could not be confined to the landlord alone and it would
include the requirement of the family members, which would include
appellant’s brother-in-law, his wife and children as well. The relevant
aspects of the findings of the Rent Controller could be usefully extracted
H
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 501
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

as follows: - A
“17. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the petitioner
is residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law, his
wife, two unmarried daughters and a son. As discussed in the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dwarka
Prasad v. Niranjan & Anr. (Supra) the term “family”, of the B
landlord includes brother, sister and other near relatives. The
bonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be confined to the
landlord alone and it includes the requirement of the family member
of the petitioner, which includes his brother-in-law, his wife, son
and daughter of brother-in-law as well.
C
18. Having reached to the conclusion that family of petitioner
includes her brother-in-law, his wife and their children also, the
present eviction petition is maintainable at the instance of the
petitioner. Now, I shall proceed to discuss the bonafide requirement
as claimed by the petitioner.
D
19. Apparently, only two bedrooms are available with the petitioner/
landlady. She alongwith her family consists of six members. Out
of six members, two are young unmarried daughters and one is a
teenage son. It goes without saying that young children require
separate rooms to sleep and study. Three children of brother-in-
law of petitioner require at least two bedrooms if two out of three E
share one bedroom. Similarly, they require at least one study room.
The Petitioner’s brother-in-law and his wife require one bedroom.
The petitioner also require a separate bedroom. One bedroom is
also required for the temporary stay of married daughter of
petitioner’s brother-in-law as she comes to the suit property to F
visit petitioner as well as her family and stay with the petitioner
out of love and affection. The petitioner being an old lady also
requires a puja room to spend her spare time to explore the spiritual
path. She being an old lady also requires assistance of a servant
to perform her daily chores and so needs one room for her servant.
Hence, the need of rooms by the petitioner condensed to at least G
eight rooms, whereas she has only two bedrooms and it is not the
business of the court to ask the petitioner to carve out the space
for rooms from the existing drawing room, lobby, storerooms etc.
20. The other ground taken for bonafide requirement is that the
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A third daughter of her brother in law Ms. Charu Sharma wants to
open play way to sustain herself and her family and she requires
at least two rooms with toilet, kitchen and veranda for opening a
play way. This fact has been mentioned in para no.9 of column
no. 18(a) of the eviction petition and the same has not been denied
in the written statement of the respondent. Further, no cross-
B
examination on this point has been done either of the petitioner or
Charu Sharma, who appeared as a witness on behalf of the
petitioner. Thus, it seems that petitioner has accepted this ground
of bonafide requirement. Therefore, the petitioner has proved by
preponderance of probabilities that she requires the tenanted
C premises for her bonafide requirement.”
5.1. As regards the description of property, learned Rent Controller
found the same duly clarified and not operating against bona fide
requirement of the appellant with the following observations and findings:-
“21. So far as the sales of the property no. C-588 and C-600, Gali
D no.12, Majlispark, Azadpur, Delhi by petitioner’s brother-in-law
and his wife are concerned, it is observed here that the said
properties were sold on 23.06.2010 for consideration of
Rs.16,00,000/- and there may be hundreds of reasons to sell the
property and that too were in the year 2010.Therefore, this fact
E does not go against the bonafide need of the petitioner because at
that time petitioner might not have felt the need for more
accommodation.
22. The tenant has failed to bring on record any document during
trial that petitioner is the owner of other properties No. C-603 and
F E-591, Majlis Park, Delhi. The tenant has contradicted himself by
saying in para no.11 of (page 6) of the written statement that
petitioner is the owner of property no. 588, whereas in para
no.18(a)(1), the devar of the petitioner has been shown the owner
of property no. 588, Majlis Park.

G 23. The petitioner in her cross-examination averred that the suit
property has been constructed on two plots no. C-586 and C-587.
On this aspect also, the respondent has failed to bring any contrary
fact. Thus, the owner-ship of property No. C-587 also stands
clarified to the effect that his devar’s wife property No. C- 587 is
a part of the suit property.”
H
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 503
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

5.2. In view of the above, the Rent Controller accepted the petition A
and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question, being
one room in the rear portion of the first floor of the building in question
while granting him six months’ time to vacate.
6. It may be pointed out at this juncture that the other eviction
petition bearing No. 03 of 2011 was filed by the appellant in relation to B
the other tenant who was having two rooms on rent, each on the first
and second floor of the same property. Almost identical averments were
taken in the said petition and more or less the same grounds of opposition
were stated by the tenant. The said matter proceeded on similar evidence
and the Rent Controller passed a similar order on the even date, i.e.,
21.11.2014, while accepting the case of the appellant and similarly ordered C
eviction of the said tenant from the premises in question while granting
six months’ time to vacate. In view of similarity of factors concerning
both the cases, we need not elaborate on the pleadings, evidence and
findings in relation to the other petition.
7. The aforesaid two revision petitions before the High Court D
against the aforesaid orders dated 21.11.2014 proceeded on similar
grounds and came to be accepted by the High Court with almost identical
orders. The High Court took the view that the appellant-landlord had not
been forthright and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner; and
the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed. Hence, E
the High Court formed the view that the appellant had failed to make out
a case of bona fide requirement. The relevant part of the consideration
and findings of the High Court could be usefully reproduced as under: -
“5. A perusal of the eviction petition presented before the additional
rent controller would show that the respondent had described herself F
as a resident of ground floor of property No.C- 586, Gali No.12,
Majlis Park, Delhi-110033, the tenanted portion in possession of
the petitioner having been described as one room in middle on the
first floor, in the rear portion of the property. The tenanted premises
was described to be part of the property bearing No.C-586,
reference being made to its graphical depiction in the site plan G
(Annexure-‘A’) in colour red. The Copy of the site plan, which
was filed with the eviction petition, it having been captioned as
the site plan of property No.C-586, Gali No.12 & 13, Majlis Park,
Delhi-110 033, would show the property to be a three storeyed
structure, there being two bed rooms, one drawing room, atleast H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A three rooms, besides kitchen, toilet, verandah and other areas
(courtyard, staircase, etc.) at the ground floor and atleast three
rooms on the first floor and the second floor (Ex.PW-1/16).
Reliance was also placed on another site plan (Ex.PW-15) which
would primarily depict the accommodation at the first and the second
floor level, the said site plan also having been captioned as one of
B
property No.C-586, Gali No.15, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. For
clarity, it may be added here that there was no reference to property
No.C-587 in the site plan, the impression thereby created being
that the entire structure/accommodation depicted therein relates
to property No.C-586 only.
C 6. The respondent appeared as her own witness (PW-1) and during
her cross-examination, she explained that her husband had passed
away in 1999 and further that she does not have any child of her
own, she not even having adopted any child. She, however, sought
to explain in that context that she considered the children of her
D brother-in-law (devar) as her own children and that they had
been residing with her since the very beginning. This clearly shows
improvement being made over the case as originally set up.
7. Be that as it may, PW-1 in cross-examination stated that she
would not remember as to when she had purchased property No.C-
E 586, Gali No.13, Majlis Park, Delhi. She admitted that Geeta
Sharma, wife of her brother-in-law (Prem Kumar Sharma) for
whose needs the eviction is sought is owner of property bearing
No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. She also
admitted that Geeta Sharma was residing in her property bearing
No.C-587. It was at that stage that she would add that the plot
F No.586 and 587 had been joined for raising a construction of one
building and that she and her sister-in-law Geeta Sharma are
residing in that one building as one family.
8. The argument raised against the above backdrop has been that
the site plans (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6) depict a common
G building constructed over two adjoining plots, they bearing No.
C- 586 and C-587. This argument cannot be accepted as it is not
based on any pleadings to this effect. On the contrary, in the
averments in the petition it was a clear case of the respondent/
landlady that the tenanted portion forms part of property No.
H C-586, which is depicted in the said site plan filed therewith.
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 505
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

9. Faced with the above argument, the counsel for the respondent/ A
landlord sought to place reliance on pleadings in para 18(a)(ii)
where it was, inter alia, mentioned that “as stated above…the
front portion of the property bearing No.C-586/587, Gali
No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110003 comprises of only ground
floor and is having two bed rooms, one drawing room, two
B
kitchen, two latrine/bathroom, two small store rooms, one
pooja room and one court yard and petitioner is presently
having the aforesaid accommodation in her possession.”
10. It is correct on the part of the petitioner/tenant to argue that
the pleadings in above nature are misleading. There is no reference
to property No.C-587 in any of the earlier or even in the later part C
of the eviction petition. Therefore, the pleadings beginning with
the expression “as stated above” were factually incorrect. There
was no reference made to the right, title or interest of Geeta
Sharma (wife of brother-in-law) in the property in question or the
same having been built over two adjoining plots of land as a D
common super-structure. The respondent/landlady cannot be
allowed to make out a new case beyond her own pleadings.
11. For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the respondent
landlady has failed to prove her case of bona fide need.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 is set aside. E
Her eviction petition is dismissed.”
8. Both the revision petitions were allowed by the High Court on
the considerations aforesaid and the respective petitions seeking eviction
were accordingly dismissed.
9. Assailing the orders so passed by the High Court, learned counsel F
for the appellant has strenuously argued that the orders impugned remain
unsustainable in law, where the High Court has overstepped its jurisdiction
under Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958. Learned counsel has referred
to and relied upon the decision in the case of Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder
Sain Dua: (2022) 6 SCC 30 to submit that the High Court could not G
have reversed the findings of the fact recorded by the Rent Controller
as regards the bona fide requirement on the ground of the so-called
misdescription of the property and without considering the clarification
before the Rent Controller and then the findings of the Rent Controller.
Learned counsel would submit that the expressions “family” and
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A “dependent”, for the purpose of the Act of 1958, and particularly the
bona fide requirement, deserve to be construed broadly and liberally so
as to include the relatives of the landlord and not strictly to include wholly
dependent persons only. The learned counsel has referred to and relied
upon the aforesaid decision in the case of Dwarkaprasad.
B 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant would
submit that on a bare perusal of the petition for eviction, it is clear that
the appellant has not correctly described the location of the suit premises
and then, had attempted to show that the premises were not situated at
No. C-586 but at the front portion of C-586 and C-587. According to the
learned counsel, the appellant had attempted to mislead the Court and
C had concealed the facts germane to the present case. It has also been
submitted that when the brother-in-law of the appellant had sold the suit
premises to the appellant, the bona fide requirement of the family members
of the said brother-in-law of the appellant is obviously non-existent and
the appellant, after having purchased the suit premises from her brother-
D in-law, would be rather estopped from claiming bona fide requirement
as a ground for eviction of the respondents. It has been contended that
the findings of the High Court are in accord with the material available
on record which the Rent Controller had totally omitted to consider.
11. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
E and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that the
impugned orders cannot be sustained and the orders of eviction as passed
by the Rent Controller deserve to be restored in these cases.
12. In a conspectus of the entire matter, the essential salient
features are that the premises in question were let out to the respective
F tenants for residential purposes. The appellant-landlord is said to be a
widowed lady having no issues of her own but residing with her brother-
in-law and other members of the family including the wife and children
of her brother-in- law. The appellant-landlord is said to have acquired
title to the property in question on being transferred by her brother-in-
law; and has sought eviction of the respective tenants from suit premises
G on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by her for use
and occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family. The
petitions as filed by the appellant-landlord are governed by Section 14(1)(e)
of the Act of 1958 that reads as under: -
“14. Protection of tenant against eviction.—(1)
H Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 507
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession A
of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour
of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in
the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession
of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, B
namely —
*** *** ***
(e) 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 C
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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “premises
let for residential purposes” include any premises which having D
been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the
landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;”
13. As noticed, the Rent Controller accepted the case of the
appellant regarding her bona fide requirement and ordered eviction of
the respective tenants. The orders so passed by the Rent Controller E
were questioned by the tenants in respective revision petitions before
the High Court. The High Court dealt with the said revision petitions in
terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958. The said Section 25-B
provides special procedure for disposal of the applications for eviction
on the ground of bona fide requirement and the revision petition in such F
matters is governed by Sub-section (8) thereof. The relevant provision
could be usefully extracted as under: -
“25-B. Special procedure for the disposal of
applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide
requirement.—
G
*** *** ***
(8) 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:
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A 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.”
14. The contours of the limited jurisdiction under the said Section
B 25- B(8) have been delineated and explained by this Court in the case of
Abid-ul-Islam (supra) with reference to several of the past decisions
and in the following terms: -
“22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and
ambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a
C 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. It is a clear omission that is done by the
legislature consciously through a covenant removing the right of
D two stages of appeals.
23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court
exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent
Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior
court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural
E compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute
and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the
appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process
adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very
restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent
F on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the
absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not
venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a
roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to
converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular
first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.”
G
15. It does not require much elaboration to say that as regards
prayer for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the intention
of legislature has specifically been to provide for a distinct and special
procedure and in that regard, no appeal or second appeal is envisaged
against the order made by the Rent Controller in accordance with the
H
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 509
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

procedure specified in Section 25-B of the Act of 1958. Only in terms of A
the proviso to Section 25-B(8), a limited window is allowed to the extent
that the High Court may call for the record, for the purpose of satisfying
itself that the order had been passed in accordance with law. It is but
clear that under the said provision, pure finding of fact is not open for
interference unless such a finding is given on a wrong premise of law.
B
16. Having examined the present matters in totality, we are
constrained to observe that the High Court has gone far beyond the
limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958.
A bare look at the consideration of the High Court in the orders impugned
makes it clear that the so-called want of clear description of the suit
premises as also the identification and extent of the property available C
with the family has formed the principal consideration of the High Court.
The High Court has examined the copy of site plan filed with the eviction
petition and its caption describing it as Property No.C-586 with no
reference to Property No.C-587. The High Court has noticed that when
being cross-examined in relation to the availability of accommodation D
with the wife of her brother-in-law, the appellant stated that Plot Nos.586
and 587 were joined together for raising construction of one building.
Such evidence and the related arguments were found unacceptable by
the High Court for being not based on pleadings. With respect, we are
unable to endorse the approach of the High Court.
E
17. A comprehensive look at the pleadings taken by the appellant
along with the site-plan attached to the petition makes it evident that the
appellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation
available in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her
occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement. In the pleadings,
it was indeed specified that the appellant was residing on the property F
bearing No. “C-586/587”. The pleadings taken by the appellant in
paragraph 18(a)(ii) of her petition, of course, begin with the expression
“as stated above” and there had not been any earlier mention of property
bearing No. “C-586/587” but, there had been detailed description in the
preceding paragraphs and the site plan was also attached to the petition. G
The appellant further made the position clear in her cross-examination
that the building in question was constructed on Plot Nos.586 and 587
jointly and she and her sister-in-law were residing in the same building
as one family.
18. Taking the pleadings as a whole and reading the same with H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.

A the evidence, it is clear that there had not been any such misdescription
of the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of the
appellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondents-
tenants.
19. Noteworthy it is that it had not been the case of the respondents
B that they were not the tenants in the premises in question. The only
attempt on the part of the respondents had been to suggest that other
properties and accommodations were available with the family. Such
suggestion on the part of respondents had not been accepted by the
Rent Controller as operating against the assertion of bona fide requirement
of the appellant. Such findings of the Rent Controller had essentially
C been the findings of facts on the basis of evidence on record. There
was no scope for upsetting such findings on a rather vague ground of
want of clarity about description of the property in question.
20. It is also noteworthy that the case of vast and extensive
requirements, as stated by the appellant and accepted by the Rent
D Controller has, as such, neither been negated nor rejected by the High
Court.
21. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we need not elaborate on
the other aspects as to whether the members of the family of the brother-
in- law of the appellant could be taken as her dependents for the purpose
E of the eviction in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act of 1958.
22. It would, of course, appear from the material placed on record
that the appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other referred
members of the family might be having title or interest in some other
properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against the
F appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the Rent
Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons.
23. Upshot of the discussion is that the findings on bonafide
requirement of the appellant in relation to both these cases could not
have been disturbed by the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague
G ground of want of clarity about identification of the property in question.
Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the orders of
eviction deserve to be restored.
24. In view of the above, these appeals succeed and are allowed;
the impugned orders dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Single
H
KUSUM LATA SHARMA v. ARVIND SINGH 511
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Judge of the High Court in RC. REV. Nos.78 of 2015 and 80 of 2015 are A
set aside and the respective orders dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Rent
Controller in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and 03 of 2011
are restored.
24.1. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case
and looking to the length of this litigation and the old tenancies, the B
respective respondents are granted time to vacate the suit premises by
31.12.2023 on the condition of their depositing the entire due rent before
the Rent Controller within four weeks from today as also on their
submitting usual undertaking before the Rent Controller to continue to
make payment of rent/mesne profits and to vacate the suit premises
within the time granted by this Court and not to assign, sub-let or part C
with the same and not to cause prejudice to the appellant-landlord in
relation to the premises in question in any manner.
25. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

D
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

E

F

G

H