Holding

The High Court’s revision order was set aside because it failed to record reasons and cannot interfere with the appellate authority’s findings of fact absent illegality, irregularity, or impropriety.

Summary

The tenant, N. Prabhakar Rao, occupied a building (both residential and non‑residential) under a lease dated 5 February 1974, paying Rs.160 per month. The landlord, J.R. Ramesh Kumar, filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, finding the landlord's claim not bona‑fide; the appellate authority affirmed this finding. The landlord appealed in revision before the High Court, which set aside the appellate order and allowed eviction, but gave no reasons for rejecting the earlier findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that, under Section 22, a revisional court may interfere only if the order suffers illegality, irregularity or impropriety, and must record reasons; therefore the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, exercising revisional powers under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, can set aside the appellate authority's order without recording reasons when the findings of fact are concurrent.
Whether the landlord's claim of a bona‑fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a) was properly evaluated by the lower tribunals.

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementrevisional jurisdictionHigh Courtappellate authorityrent controllandlord‑tenant disputecivil appeal

Judgment

A N. PRABHAKAR RAO
v.
J.R. RAMESH KUMAR@ RAMESHn

NOVEMBER 2; 2001 i
B [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]

Rent and £viction
. .

AndhraPradeshBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960:

c Ss. 22 and10(.3)(a)-Revisional power of High Court._:...Residential as
well as non-residential premises-Landlord seeking eviction oftenant on ground
ofbona fide requirement-Rent Coniroller dismissing eviction petition r.ecord-
ing a finding that requirement of the provision were noi satisfied-Appeal of
landlord dismissed by appellate authority-But High Courl in revision allow-
D ing the petition of landlord-:-Held, having regard to revisional powers ofHigh
Court unless in the opinion ofHigh Court.for reasons to be recorded, the order
assailed before it suffers from an illegality, irregularity or impropriety, the
same cannot be interfered with, more so when it is based on concurrent findings
offact-High Cou11 did not indicate any reasons for not sustaining the order
of appellate authority-Matter remanded to High Court for· decision afresh-
E Revision.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7457 of2001.

. From the Judgeinent and Order dated 5.9.2000 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P, No~ 5093 of 1996.
F
P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar and V.G. Prag·i:tsam for the Appellant.

M.N Rao, S. Sadasiva Reddy and Mrs. S. Usha Reddy for the Respond-
ent.

G TI1e following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave is granted.

This appeal is directed against the o.i;der of the High Comt of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 5093 ofJ996 dated September 5, 2000,
H · allowing the revision filed by the respondent-landlord and setting aside the
654
N. PRABHAKAR RAO v. J.R. RAMESH KUMAR 655
order of the appellate authority in R.A. No. 97 of 1991 dated July 12, 1996 A
confirming the order of the Principal Rent Controller, Secundrabad in R.C. No.
355 of 1980 dated December 31, 1990.

The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the .landlord of the
building bearing Mw1icipal Assessment No. 7-3-181 to 183 and 209 situated
at Ghasmandi, Secunderabad (for short, 'the building'). The appellant obtained B
the building which comprises of both residential as well as non-residential
portions, from the respondent on the monthly rent of Rs. 160 under the agree-
ment of tenancy dated February 5, 1974. The respondent filed eviction petition
R.C. No. 355 of 1980 praying for eviction of the appellant from the building
on as many as three grounds; the only ground with which we are concerned ·C
here is bona .fide requirement of the respondent under Section 10(3)(a) of
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for
-. short, 'the Act'). The appellant contested the petition denying that the need of
the respondent was bona fide. The learned Rent Controller, on considering the
evidence placed before him, came to the conclusion that the requirements of
the said provision were not satisfied and dismissed the eviction petition. On D
appeal the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Cowt - Appellate Authority
under the Act - on scrutiny of the evidence including the additional evidence,
allowed to be adduced by the parties, dismissed the appeal - R.A. No. 97 of
1991 - on July 12, 1996. The respondent carried the matter in revision before
the High Court in C.R.P. No. 5093 of 1996 which was allowed by the im- E
pugned order. That is how this appeal came to be filed.

Mr. P. Narasimha, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that
both with regard to residential portion as well as non-residential portion of the
building, the trial comt recorded specific finding that the alleged need of the
respondent was not bona fide, which was upheld by the appeUate authority; the F
High Court without examining the correctness of those findings of fact, re-
,.
corded its own finding upholding the claim of the respondent.

Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent,
has endeavoured to sustain the order of the High Court on the ground that by
a reasoned order the High Court came to the conclusion that the need of the G
respondent was bona fide and ordered eviction and therefore the findings of
the appellate authority as well as the trial comt will be deemed to have been
dealt with and set aside.

We have perused the order of the High Court under challenge as well H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A as the order of the appellate authority and the trial court. We find considerable
force in the contention of Mr. Narasimha. Having regard to the revisional
powers of the High Court under Section 22 of the Act tmless in the opinion
of the High Court, for reaso~s to be recorded, the order assailed before it suffers
from an illegality, inegularity or improp1iety, the same cannot be interfered
B . with, more so when it is based on concuITent findings of fact. In the instant
case, the High Court did not indicate any reasons for not sustaining the order
of the appellate authority. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned
order of the High Court. Inasmuch as we are of the view that remanding the
case to the High Court for fresh disposal, in accordance wii:h law, will meet
the ends of justice, we refrain from making any observation on the merits of
C .the case. We set asid.e the impugned order of the High Court and restore C.R.P.
No. 5093 of 1996 ·to the file of the High Cotirt for deciding the same in
accordance with law untrammelled by any observation made in this order.

The appeal is allowed'accordingly. We make nc:i order as to costs of this
appeal.
D
. R.P. Appeal allowed .

1.