Holding

The High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 to re‑appraise the evidence and found the landlord’s requirement bona fide and reasonable, thereby justifying eviction.

Summary

The landlord filed eviction petitions under Sections 21(h) and 21(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, seeking possession of premises for his own residence and for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court dismissed the petitions, finding the landlord had not proved the building was dilapidated. The Karnataka High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 50, re‑appraised the evidence, held the landlord’s need to be bona fide and reasonable, and ordered the tenants to vacate. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court could not re‑appraise facts and that the landlord had not shown a genuine requirement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was empowered to examine the legality and correctness of the lower court’s order, including a fresh appreciation of evidence, and that the landlord’s requirement was bona fide, the building was dilapidated, and the comparative hardship favored eviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order.

Issues considered

The scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to re‑appraise evidence and interfere with findings of fact.
Whether the landlord’s requirement for the premises for personal occupation and demolition is bona fide, reasonable, and supported by evidence of dilapidation.
Whether comparative hardship favours the landlord over the tenants.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 21(h), s. 21(j), s. 50

Subjects

evictionrent controlbona fide requirementdemolitionrevisional jurisdictioncomparative hardshipKarnataka Rent Control ActSection 50landlord-tenant

Judgment

I
;k

A P.S. PAREED KAKA AND ORS.
l'.

SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB

MARCH 23, 2004

B [R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961-Sections 21 (h) & (J.) and 50--
C Eviction petition by landlord-Pre111ises required for his own use and for
de111olition and reconstruction for residential use-Trial Court dis111issing the
eviction petition-High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, reversed the
findings of the trial court-Correctness of-Held, High Court had the power
to re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to its own findings under
D the Act-On facts and evidence, the need of the landlord being bona fide and
the building required demolition and reconstruction, High Court rightly
rewrsed the findings r!f' the triul court.

Respondent-landlord filed rent control petitions before trial court
for eviction of the appellant-tenants from his premises, under section 21(h)
E and (J.) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for his own occupation
:rnd for demolition and reconstruction of a residential house. The trial
court dismissed the petitions holding that the respondent did not require
the premises for demolition and reconstruction as the respondent failed
to prove that the premises was in a dilapidated condition. High Court
F allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed the appellant-tenants
to vacate and deliver the premises to the respondent.

In appeal to the Court, the appellant contended that the High Court
had no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and evaluate the evidence on record
affirmed by the trial court; that the High Court failed to .render a correct
G finding on the comparative hardship; that the respondent did not prove
his bona fide requirement of the premises; and that the premises is not in
a dilapidated condition which required demolition.

The respondent contended that the High Court had jurisdiction to
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court under section
fI 412
~ ..

P.S. PAREED KA.KA v. SHAfEE AHMED SA.HEB 413
50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act; and that the present A
accommodation is situated in an unhygienic area facing a drain emitting
bad stench and hence he needed the premises for his residential
accommodation; and that the premises was dilapidated requiring
demolition and construction.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court B

HELD: 1.1. The trial Court has miserably failed to consider whether
the need put forth by respondent-landlord is bona fide, reasonable or not.
The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion
that the need of the respondent is bona fide and the building required C
demolition and reconstruction. The evidence tendered consistently shows
that all the witnesses have clearly admitted that the accommodation, where
the respondent landlord is residing, faces a drain and that the area is
' unhygienic and he does not want to stay near a drain. The tenants have
admitted the same in their evidence. It cannot be said that the decision of
the landlord to leave the premises and to shift to a premises away from D
the drain is unreasonable or unjust. The evidence let in clearly shows that
there is sufficient cause for the landlord to shift his residence to a new
premises and reside there. In fact, the reasonableness can also be decided
from the offer made by the landlord that if all the tenants vacate the
premises by consent the landlord is willing to even demolish and construct
shops and residential portions for the tenants in the Nala road property E
and give them on rent. 1419-A-Df

1.2. The mere fact that the landlord had filed an eviction petition
against the earlier tenant of the Nala road property is not a ground to
hold that the landlord should continue to live in the said property F
undergoing hardship and inconvenience. 1419-EI

1.3. It is in evidence that the premises is very old and the building
therein is dilapidated and portions of the building have also collapsed. It
is also in evidence that the rear outhouse building has already collapsed.
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the said need is not bona G
fide or unreasonable. It is not for the tenants to suggest that there is no
need to demolish the existing building and construct the new building. The
) landlord is entitled to make use of his property for any reasonable purpose.
If the landlord chooses to use it for residential purpose, the tenants cannot
say that he should not do so. 1419-F-GI
H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2004] 3 S.C.R.

A 1.4. If the landlord wants to live by constructing a house in the "..
premises the mere fact that he does not have any children does not mean
that he and his wife should not shift to the premises. It is also not in dispute
that the landlord has got ample financial resources to demolish the building
in question, reconstruct and occupy the same. Even if the building is in a
good condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he
B can always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to
suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that
the condition of the building is such that. it require immediate demolition
particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Thus, the
finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-
c appreciation of the evidence has rightly held that the landlord has
established the need for the premises, which is bona fide and reasonable.
[420-A-D[

R. V.E. f'enkatacha/a Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and Ors., AIR
(2002) SC 1733; Harrington House School v. S.M lspahani and Anr., AIR
D (2002) SC 2268 and Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Amma/, [1996[ 6
sec 475, referred to.
A.N. Srinivas Thevar v. Sundarambal @ Prema Wlo Chandrakumar,
(1995) 2 Mad LW 14, referred to.

E 1.5. The High Court has powers to entertain a revision petition under
section 115 C.P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence and dispose of the same.
The High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of
the decision which includes the power to re-appreciate evidence and that
the High Court can interfere with the findings of fact also. This apart,
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent
F j.·
Control Act is to examine the legality and correctness of the order of the
trial Court. The examination as to the correctness involves appreciation
of evidence and that the High Court can interfere if the finding of the Rent
Controller is entirely improbable. [425-A-B[

G Kempaiah v. lingaiah and Ors., [2001 [ 8 SCC 718, relied on.

Phiro::.e Bamanji Desai v. Cha11draka111 M. Patel and Ors., 1197413 SCR
267, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3856-3858
H of 1999.
P.S. PAREED KAKA v. SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB [LAKSHMANAN ..I.] 415

__,- From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.98 of the Karnataka High A
Court in H.R.R.P. Nos. 2846-2848 of 1992.

P.B. Menon, Ms. Preeti Khiwani and Vijay Lakshmi Menon for the
Appellants.

Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondent. B
'.he Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The matter arises under the Karnataka
Rent Control Act, 1961. The unsuccessful tenants are the appellants in these
appeals. The respondent/landlord filed rent control petitions before the Court C
of Small Causes against the appellants, inter alia, under the provisions of
Section 21 (h) and (j) ·of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The Court of Small
Causes dismissed the petitions. The landlord filed revision petitions, inter
alia, challenging the order of the Court of Small Causes. On 19.11.1998, the
High Court allowed all the revision petitions by a common judgment and
directed that the tenants shall vacate and deliver the premises under their D
respective occupation to the landlord. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment
of the High Court, the tenants have approached this Court seeking special
leave to appeal.

We heard Mr. P.B. Menon, learned senior counsel for the appellants E
and Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Menon
submitted five submissions in support of his contention. They are:

I. The High Comt has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and evaluate
the evidence on record which has resulted in arriving at the
conclusion which is manifest in the impugned judgment and on F
--¥ this ground the impugned judgment/order ought to be set aside
by this Court.
2. The High Court has failed to render a correct finding on the
comparative hardship.
3. The reasoning and finding of the High Court on each and every G
point referred to in the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse
and against the weight of the evidence on record of the case and
> as such has resulted in substantial failure and miscarriage of
justice to the petitioners.
4. The High Court was not right in law in holding that the landlord H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS J2004] 3 S.C.R.

A proved his bona.fide requirement of the premises in question.
5. The finding of the High Cou11 that the building is not in a
dilapidated condition is against the real facts.

Learned counsel for the respondent took us through the pleadings and
B the order and judgment passed by the Rent Controller and also by the High
Court. According to him, the High Court has jurisdiction under Section 50 to
interfere with the findings of fact and that the High Court is justified in
interfering with the trial courts finding based on abundant materials. He
would also submit that other findings rendered by the High Court in ordering ~
eviction are unassailable and supported by cogent and convincing reasons.
C He would pray for the dismissal of the special leave petition. As already
noticed, the eviction petition was filed under Section 21 (h) and (j) which
reads thus:-

"21. Protection of tenants against eviction.- (I) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other Jaw or contract, no
D order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall
be made by any Court or other authority in favour of the landlord
against the tenant:

Provided that the Court may on an application made to it, make
an order for the recovery of possession of a premises on one or more
E of the following grounds only, namely:-

(a) ..

xxxx
xx xx
F
xxxx
(h) that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the
landlord for occupation by himself or any person for whose benefit
the premises are held or where the landlord is a trustee of a
public charitable trust, that the premises are required for
G occupation for the purposes of the trust: or
(i) xxxx
)
(j) that the premises are reasonably and hona fide required by the
landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and
I-I such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new
P.S. PAREED KAKA v. SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB [LAKSHMANAN. J.]417

,>' building in place of the premises sought to be demolish'ed; or A
(k) xxxxxx"

We reproduce hereunder Section 50 of the Act (Revision) in order to
appreciate the arguments advanced by counsel appearing on either side in
regard to the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
B
"50. Revision.- (I) The High Court may, at any time call for and
examine any order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of Small
":f Causes or the Court of Civil Judge under this Act or any order passed
' by the Controller under Sections 14,15,16or 17 for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such order or c
proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks
fit.

(2) The District Judge may, at any time call for and examine any
order passed or proceeding taken by the Court of Munsiff referred to
in sub-clause (iii) of clause (d) of Section 3 for the purpose of D
satisfying himself as to the legality or correctness of such order or
proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks
fit. The order of the District Judge shall be final.

(3) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before the High
Court or the District Judge shall be in the discretion of the High E
Court or the District Judge, as the case may be."

As seen earlier, the Rent Controller passed a common order rejecting
all the petitions filed by the landlord. The rejection was challenged by filing
revisions under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act. According to the landlord,
the accommodation available in the Nala road premises was insufficient, that F
''-'( the Nala road property is not situated in a good locality; that it was situated
in an unhygienic area and facing a drain emitting bad stench; that his family
were feeling frequently sick due to the unhygienic atmosphere on the foul
smell emanated therefrom. Therefore, he wanted the schedule premises for
his own use and occupation for residential purposes. The landlord also G
contended that the premises in question was more than I00 years o Id and is
not fit for human habitation and certain portions of the property had also
collapsed and, therefore, the entire premises was required for the immediate
)- purpose of demolition and for reconstruction of a residential house to suit his
needs for the purpose of his residence.
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 3 S.C.R.

A The tenants resisted the petitions. They contended that the premises at .....
,
Nala road belonged to landlord and had adequate comfortable accommodation
to meet the landlord's requirement as his family consisted of only himself
and his wife; that it was situated in a good locality; that the area was not
unhygienic having regard to the fact that the drain facing the said property
B was not as open sewer drain, but a strong water drain with a covered sewer
drain below it and that it did not emit any bad odour and that, therefore, the
need put-forth by the landlord is not bona fide and reasonable. They also
contended that no hardship will be caused to the landlord if orders of eviction
were not passed as he was comfortably residing at Nala road prope1ty. All the
tenants contended that they wi II be put to hardship if they are evicted from
C the property.

The trial Court held that the landlord did not require the petition schedule
premises for demolition and reconstruction or for his own use. Consequently,
it did not consider the question of comparative hardship and partial eviction.
The Rent Controller held that the landlord did not prove that the property was
D in a dilapidated condition. The Court also held that the premises No. 26 at
Nala road where the landlord was residing was more spacious than the new
building which he intended to construct at No. 71 - Labbay Masjid street of
which the petition schedule premises were all portions and as the landlord did
not have any children and his family consisted of only himself and his wife,
E premises at Nala road which consisted of 2 bed-rooms, one hall, one office
room etc. was sufficient to meet his requirements. In regard to the unhygienic
atmosphere at Nala road the trial Court found that the premises in question
was earlier in the occupation of a tenant that the landlord had purchased the
said property and filed an eviction petition against the tenant at Nala road on
the ground that he require it for his own use and thereafter occupied the
F premises, and the landlord having known fully well the existence of a Nala
soak drain and having obtained possession of his property for his own use
cannot now contend that the said premises is not situated in a good locality
or that it is unhygienic. The trial Comt, in our view, has completely misdirected
itself in considering what is bona fide and what is reasonable. The findings on
G other issues also are not satisfactory.
The main ground on which the landlord wanted the petition schedule
premises is because he wanted to shiti from Nala road premises which was
situated in unhygienic locality and facing a drain. He also contended that he
wanted to demolish the more than 100 year old building of which the petition
H schedule premises were all portions and then put up a residential house for
P.S. PAREED KAKA i·. SllAFEE AHMED SA HER [LAKSHMJ\NAN . .I.I 419

~· his own use and occupy the same for his residence. The trial Cou11 has A
misenibly failed to consider whether the need as putforth is bona fide,
reasonable or not. The High Court on a re-appreciation of the evidence came
to the conclusion that the need is bona fide and the building require demolition
and reconstruction. The evidence tendered consistently shows that all the
witnesses have clearly admitted that the Nala road prope1iy where the landlord
is residing faces a drain and that the area is unhygie:1ic and he does not want
B
to stay near a drain. The tenants have admitted the same in their evidence.
, It cannot be said that the decision of the landlord to leave the premises and
'1' to shift to a premises away from the drain is unreasonable or unjust. The
evidence Jet in will clearly show that there is sufficient cause for the landlord
to shift his residence to a new premises and reside there. In fact, the c
reasonableness can also be decided from the offer made by the landlord that
if all the tenants vacate the petition schedule premises by consent the landlord
is willing to even demolish and construct shops and residential portions for
the tenants in the Nala road property and give them on rent. Of course, the
said offer has not been accepted by all the tenants. It is contended on behalf D
of the learned counsel for the tenants that the landlord had obtained vacant
possession of the Nala road property by evicting the previous tenants and
;r- move into the Nala road property. It is only after living in the Nala road
property the landlord came to know the disadvantages, namely, the bad smell
from the open drain and the unhygienic surroundings the mere fact that he
had filed an eviction petition against the earlier tenant of the Nala road E
property is not a ground to hold that the landlord should continue to live in
the said property undergoing hardship and inconvenience .
...
This brings us to the need for the petition schedule premises. It is in
evidence that the premises is very old and the building therein is dilapidated F
. ,., and portions of the building have also collapsed. It is also in evidence that
the rear outhouse building has already collapsed. In these circumstances, it
cannot be said that the said need is not bona fide or unreasonable. It is not
for the tenants io suggest that there is no need to demolish the existing
building and construct the new building. The landlord, in our view, is entitled
to make use of his property for any reasonable purpose. If the landlord G
chooses to use it for residential purpose, the tenants cannot say that he should
not do so to using for commercial purposes. We, therefore, hold that the
landlord has made out the need clearly.
:>·
Learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the family of the landlord H
consists of only the landlord and his wife and he has no children and, therefore,
I
~-

420 Sl'l'REMI: COURT Rl:l'ORTS 120041} S.CR.

A he does not require the petition schedule premises. This contention cannot at
all be countenanced. If the landlord wants to live by constructing a house in
the petition schedule premises the mere fact that he does not have any children
does not mean that he and his wife should not shift to the petition schedule
premises. It is also not in dispute that the landlord has got ample financial
B resources to demolish the building in question reconstruct and occupy the
same. The tenants have also admitted that the building is very old and one
of them admits that it is more than I00 years old.

Law is well settled on this aspect Even if the building is in a good ,.
condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can
c always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his
requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the condition
of the building is such that it require immediate demolition particularly when
the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that the
finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-
appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established
D
that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and
reasonable.
.,
In R. VE. Venkatacha/a Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and Ors., AIR
(2002) SC 1733, one of us (R.C.Lahoti, J.) speaking for the Bench while
E dealing with the similar provision under the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and
Rent Control) Act has observed as under:-

"The building in question was located in busy business locality. It
was 30 years old constructed of stones, bricks and mm1ar. The roof
was pai1ially of cement sheets and partially of tiles. The building
F occupied only a portion of the landlords total land. It was not
dilapidated and damaged. The landlord to augment his income wanted ')>-r
to demolish and reconstruct new building on his entire land. The
proposed new building was to be a double storeyed modern building
of cement concrete providing much more total accommodation than
G what is available. In such circumstances the offer of the tenant that
they are prepared to pay the rent at the current rate. the one which
the landlord expects on reconstruction could not be a ground to refuse
eviction decree to the landlord."
,(
Again in para 11, this Court while approving the judgment of the Madras
H High Court (AR. Lakshmanan, J. ·as he then was) in AN Srinivasa Thevar
l'.S. l'i\RI rn KAKA 1·. SllAFEE AHMED SAHUl 11.AKSI IMA NAN . .I J 421

v. Sundaromhu! ·,i l'remu Wlo Chumlrukumar. 1995 (2) Mad LW 14 has A
observed as under:

''In A.N. Sri11iva.1·a Thevar v. Sundarambal a/ios l'rema fV/u
Chandrakumur. 1995 (2) Mad LW 14: even before the decision by Constitution
Bench in Vijur Singh 's case was available, it was held in the light of the
decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following factors was B
sufficient to make out a case of bonu fide requirement under S. 14( I)(b ): "(a)
Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is undisputed and
also proved satisfactorily: (b) The size of the existing building occupies only
one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant and unutilised; (c)
Demand for additional space : The demised premises is situated in a busy C
locality. Therefore. there is a great demand for additional space in the locality
which could be met by demolishing the existing small building and putting
up a larger building providing for future development vertically also, by
building pucca terraced building; (d) The economic advantage : A modern
construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also
appreciate in value, when compared to the asbestos sheet roofed old building: D
In that case, it was observed that the existing building was an old, out-model
asbestos sheet. building proposed to be replaced with better and modern
building which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs
of the present days as the preservation of such building in a busy locality of
a town shall not only be an eyesore but also against the souring public E
demand for additional space. Viewed from the angle of general interest of the
public which. according to the decision in P. Orr. & sons is one of the
considerations. it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern
building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities
to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Stalling growth and
development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model F
building constructed with mud and mortar and asbestos sheets occupying
only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We
approve the statement of Jaw and the approach adopted by Madras High
Court in both the above said decisions."

The observations made by the single Judge of the Madras High Court G
(AR. Lakshmanan, J. as he then was) in A.N Srinivasa Thevar (supra) can
also be beneficially looked into in the present context :

"In the present case, the Jandlady!respondent has specifically stated
in her petition that the building consists of brick built structure covered H
422 SUPREME COllRT REPORTS [20041 3 S.C.R.

A by Asbestos sheet. Further. the premises does not yield good return.
and in the present condition it has not been properly utilised. Hence.
she intends to demolish the existing structure and construct a new
building with better utility and for good return. As stated already, the
building is situate at Kamaraj Salai. which is admittedly a busy locality.
It is borne out from the evidence of both the landlady/respondent and
B the tenant/petitioner that there is a large vacant space behind the
existing building. A cumulative reading of all the above facts would
make it clear that in a busy locality in Pondicherry town, the demised
premises which is more than 30 years old, with asbestos roof,
occupying one third of the site leaving two third of the site vacant.
,.
c behind the building."

In Harring/on House School v. SM /spahani and Anr., AIR (2002) SC
2268, one of us (R.C. Lahoti, J.) speaking for the Bench after analysing the
entire facts and circumstances and the law on the subject rendered a finding
to the following effect:
D
"In the present case it has been found that the building is an old
construction requiring demolition and reconstruction. Out of tl1e total
area of the property only a part is built up and substantial portio1. is
lying open and vacant. There is pressure of population on the
developing city and several multi-storey complexes have come up in
E the vicinity of the property. There is nothing to cast a shadow of
doubt in the bona.fides of the landlords pleading an immediate need
for demolition followed by reconstruction. No fault can be found
with the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court. The decision by
the Appellate Court was rendered on 25th February, 1994 when three-
Judge Bench decision of this Court in P.Orr & Sons (supra) was
F
holding the field and in view of the construction placed by this Co11rt
in P. Orr & Sons the Appellate Court was persuaded to deny eviction
· in spite of the findings of facts being for the landlord. The High
Court has rightly set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority
and ordered eviction following the law laid down by the Constitution
G Bench in Vijay Singh and Ors. case. It is true that the landlords have
not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of the building as one
of the components of their bona .fide.1· but that is immaterial. The age
and condition of the building has been determined and is available
for assessing the bona .fides of the landlords' need."

H In Vijay Singh and Ors., v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, [1996] 6 SCC 475,
P.S PA REED K/\K;\ 1·. SllAFEE AllMED SMIEB I LAKSllM1\NAN . .I.] 423

this Court has observed in para I0 as follows:- A
··on reading Section 14(\)(b) along with Section 16 it can be said
that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building
for erecting a new building. the building need not be dilapidated or
dangerous for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is
no occasion to put a condition to demolish within a specified time, B
and to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-section (1) of
Section 16 contemplates that permission has been granted by the
Rent Controller under Section 14( I)(b) for demolition of the building,
but if such demolition. is not carried out in terms of the order and
undertaking. then the Rent Controller can order the landlord to put C
the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and
conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring
immediate demolition for safety, then there is no question of the Rent
Controller directing the landlord to put the tenant in possession of
such building on the original terms and conditions, on account of the
failure of the landlord to commence the demolition within the period D
prescribed. Similarly. there was no occasion to link the demolition of
such building with erection of new building and then to give the
landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the Act for a
period of five years from the date on which the construction of such
new building is completed and notified to the local authorities E
concerned. In this background. it has to be held that neither of the
extreme position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be
accepted. Permission under Section 14( I )(b) cannot be granted by the
Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to
immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building.
At the same time it is difficu It to accept the stand of the appellants F
that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human
habitation. For granting permission under Section 14( I )(b) the Rent
Co1itroller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording
a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of
the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona G
fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition
was bona .fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (I) bona
fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid
of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the
financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building
according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of H
I
_#

424 SUl'Rl·fVIE COUR I RI:l'ORlS [21111~] 3 S.C.R.

A the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before
an order is passed under Section 14( 1)(b). No court can Ii>. any limit
in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to
be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a
conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent
Controller."
B
The next question that arises for consideration is comparative hardship.
Learned counsel for the landlord has contended that the Nala road premises
is unsuitable because it is unhygienic and. therefore. he wants to shift to the
petitions schedule premises. It is not the case of the tenants that the landlord
C has any other premises of his own. The landlord. in our view. will be put to
hardship if he is not able to shift to the petition schedule premises. The
tenants also will not be put to any hardship at all as elaborately discussed by
the High Court in para 20. 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3 with reference to each tenancy.
The evidence would clearly go to show that none of the tenants will be put
to hardship if they are evicted from the respective prcm ises in their occupation.
D Learned counsel for the tenants argue that the High Comt can interfere only
if there is any mis-carriage of justice due to mistake of law and that the
finding of the lower Court as to bona fide requirements etc. cannot be
interefered with by the High Court by reappreciating evidence which is
impermissible in law. In supp011 of his contention, he relied on the decision
E of this Com1 in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrokanl M Pale/ and Ors.,
[1974) 3 SCR 267. The above decision will be of any assistance to the
tenants. The judgment is not only distinguishable on facts but also 71 law.
On the other hand, this Court in Kempaiah v. Lingaiah and Ors. [200 I] 8
SCC 718 held that the revisional powers of the High Court, under the
Karnataka Rent Control Act, are wider than the powers conferred upon it
F under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Cou11 is not
precluded to appreciate the evidence for arriving at the conclusion regarding
the bona fide requirement etc. We have already extracted Section 50 of the
Rent Control Act. The said Section is widely couched. The High Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 50 may at any time call for and examine
any order passed or proceedings taken by the Court of Small Causes or the
G Court of Civil Judge or any order passed by the Controller under Section 14,
15, 16 or 17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness
of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as
it things fit. Under Section 115 C.P.C. the High Court has got power to revise
the order passed by the Courts subordinate to it. It cannot be disputed that
H the Rent Controller is a subordinate Court and is liable to the revisional
P.S. PAREED KAKA v. SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB [LAKSHMANAN. J.1425

jurisdiction of the High Court. Hence. the High Court has powers to entertain A
a revision and reappreciate the evidence and dispose of the same. The High
Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision
which, in our view, includes the power to reappreciate evidence and that the
High Court can interfere with the findings of fact also. This apart, the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50 is to examine the legality and B
correctness of the order of the trial Court. The examination as to the correctness
involves appreciation of evidence and that the High Court can interfere if the
finding of the Rent Controller is entirely improbable.

For the aforesaid reasons, the tenants are not entitled to succeed in
these appeals and the appeals stand dismissed. However, the tenants will C
have three month's time to vacate the premises in their respective occupation
and subject to the filing of an usual undertaking within two weeks from this
date failing which the landlord is at libe11y to levy execution and proceed
further in accordance with law. No costs.

B.S. Appeal dismissed D

,
').