# KALPANA VYAS v. RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI

- **Citation:** [2018] 13 S.C.R. 572
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-10-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.10811 of 2018
- **Bench:** Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kalpana-vyas-v-raj-kumar-rangwani-32521
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Art.227 - Jurisdiction of High Court
- Scope of - Eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlady against
the respondent-tenant on ground of bona fide need - Petition
dismissed by Rent Tribunal - Appellate Tribunal set aside the order
of the Rent Tribunal - High Court restored the order of the Rent
Tribunal - Held: High Court while allowing the respondent's writ
petition held that the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's
appeal with casual approach and failed to record any categorical
finding on the plea of bona fide need - Having held that, the High
Court had two options, either to remand the case to the Appellate
Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to decide the
matter itself on merits - High Court ought to have resorted to the
first option and remanded the case back to the Appellate Tribunal,
since it was hearing the matter in its writ jurisdiction u/Art.227 and
it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an
Appellate Court - High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on
its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal - There was
no factual finding recorded on the question of bona fide need -
Case remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on
merits - Rent Control and Eviction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The need to remand the case to the Rent
Appellant Tribunal occasioned because the High Court, while
allowing the respondent's writ petition, came to a conclusion and
accordingly held that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the
appellant's appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any
categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need. Having held
that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 572
572
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh
on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter
itself on merits in accordance with law. Since the High Court heard
the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in
detail like an Appellate Court. It is for this reason, the High
Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the
case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 16] [576-A-B]
1.2 The High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case
on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal. This
approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant
because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first
appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide
need. [Paras 17, 18] [576-C-D]
1.3 It is for this reason that the finding of the High Court is
upheld in relation to the approach and the manner in which the
Rent Appellate Tribunal decided the appellant's appeal but it
would be just and proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate
Tribunal for its decision on merits afresh in accordance with law.
Impugned order is modified to the extent that the case is
remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 19, 20] [576-E-F]

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
KALPANA VYAS
v.
RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI
(Civil Appeal No.10811 of 2018)
OCTOBER 29, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art.227 - Jurisdiction of High Court
- Scope of - Eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlady against
the respondent-tenant on ground of bona fide need - Petition
dismissed by Rent Tribunal - Appellate Tribunal set aside the order
of the Rent Tribunal - High Court restored the order of the Rent
Tribunal - Held: High Court while allowing the respondent's writ
petition held that the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's
appeal with casual approach and failed to record any categorical
finding on the plea of bona fide need - Having held that, the High
Court had two options, either to remand the case to the Appellate
Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh on merits or to decide the
matter itself on merits - High Court ought to have resorted to the
first option and remanded the case back to the Appellate Tribunal,
since it was hearing the matter in its writ jurisdiction u/Art.227 and
it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in detail like an
Appellate Court - High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case on
its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal - There was
no factual finding recorded on the question of bona fide need -
Case remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to be decided afresh on
merits - Rent Control and Eviction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The need to remand the case to the Rent
Appellant Tribunal occasioned because the High Court, while
allowing the respondent's writ petition, came to a conclusion and
accordingly held that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the
appellant's appeal with a casual approach and failed to record any
categorical finding on the plea of bona fide need. Having held
that, the High Court had two options: first either to remand the
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 572
572
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
573
case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal afresh
on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter
itself on merits in accordance with law. Since the High Court heard
the matter in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, it was not possible to examine the issue on facts in
detail like an Appellate Court. It is for this reason, the High
Court ought to have resorted to first option and remanded the
case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 15, 16] [576-A-B]
1.2 The High Court committed error in not taking recourse
to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case
on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal. This
approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the appellant
because there was no factual finding recorded either by the first
appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona fide
need. [Paras 17, 18] [576-C-D]
1.3 It is for this reason that the finding of the High Court is
upheld in relation to the approach and the manner in which the
Rent Appellate Tribunal decided the appellant's appeal but it
would be just and proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate
Tribunal for its decision on merits afresh in accordance with law.
Impugned order is modified to the extent that the case is
remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 19, 20] [576-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10811
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 5403 of 2015.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Satyendra Kumar, Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Utkarsh Tiwari, Ms. Khushboo Vinodray
Malkan, Bhaskar Singh, Ms. Dharita P.Malkan, Advs. for
the Respondent.
KALPANA VYAS v. RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 02.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5403/2015 whereby the High Court has
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
3. The issue involved in the appeal is short, as also the facts of the
case lie in a narrow compass, which would be clear from the narration
infra.
4. The appellant is the applicant, whereas the respondent is the
non-applicant in the eviction petition filed by the appellant against the
respondent before the Rent Control Tribunal, Rajasthan out of which
this appeal arises.
5. The appellant - a landlady of the suit premises filed the eviction
petition against the respondent-tenant of the suit premises under Section
9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act (for short called "The Act") before
the Rent Tribunal Kota (R-84/2005) praying therein for respondent's
eviction from the tenanted suit premises.
6. The appellant claimed respondent's eviction from the suit
premises on the ground of her personal bona fide need for raising
construction in the existing suit premises to be used for her children and
for stay of appellant's guest in the suit premises.
7. The respondent denied the appellant's need and, inter alia,
contended that the appellant is in possession of an alternative
accommodation in the city and hence her alleged need set up in the
eviction petition can be accomplished by using the alternative
accommodation available in the city.
8. By order dated 8.2.2011, the Rent Tribunal dismissed the
appellant's eviction petition holding that appellant's need can be
accomplished with an alternative space available with her in the city.
9. The appellant (landlady) felt aggrieved and filed an appeal
(144/2014) before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by order
dated 12.2.2015 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent
Tribunal, decreed the appellant's eviction petition and passed the eviction
decree against the respondent, in relation to the suit premises.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
575
10. The respondent (tenant) felt aggrieved and filed writ petition
before the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur). By impugned order, the
learned Single Judge allowed the respondent's writ petition and set aside
the order of the Appellate Tribunal and restored the order of the Rent
Tribunal which gives rise to filing of the special leave to appeal in this
Court by the landlady.
11. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the
respondent's (tenant's) writ petition thereby justified in setting aside the
appellate order of the Rent Appellate Tribunal and restoring that of the
Rent Tribunal.
12. Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, learned counsel for the respondent.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, modify the
impugned order and remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for
deciding the appeal (144/2014) afresh on merits.
14. In our opinion, the need to remand the case to the Rent Appellant
Tribunal has occasioned because the High Court, while allowing the
respondent's writ petition, came to a conclusion and accordingly held
that the Rent Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant's (landlady's) appeal
with a casual approach and failed to record any categorical finding on
the plea of bona fide need. The operative part of the High Court order
reads as under:-
 "Taking into consideration the fact aforesaid, I do not
find any reason for Rent Appellate Tribunal for setting aside
the order of the Rent Tribunal. The perusal of the impugned
order shows a casual approach of the Rent Appellate
Tribunal in reversing the finding of the Rent Tribunal, that
too, without going into the issue of personal bonafide
necessity. The Rent Appellate Tribunal was expected to
first decide the issue as to whether respondent is having
personal bonafide necessity or not. Accordingly, impugned
order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is set aside."
 (emphasis supplied)
KALPANA VYAS v. RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
15. Having held that, the High Court had two options: first either
to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
afresh on merits in accordance with law and second, to decide the matter
itself on merits in accordance with law.
16. Since the High Court heard the matter in its writ jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was not possible to examine the
issue on facts in detail like an Appellate Court. It is for this reason, in
our view, the High Court ought to have resorted to first option and
remanded the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the
appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
17. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in not taking
recourse to any option and without deciding the issue arising in the case
on its merit, simply restored the order of the Rent Tribunal.
18. This approach of the High Court caused prejudice to the
appellant (landlady) because there was no factual finding recorded either
by the first appellate Court or the High Court on the question of bona
fide need.
19. It is for this reason that we uphold the finding of the High
Court in relation to the approach and the manner in which the Rent
Appellate Tribunal decided the appellant's appeal but consider it just and
proper to remand the case to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for its decision
on merits afresh in accordance with law.
20. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that the case is
remanded to the Rent Appellate Tribunal for deciding the appeal
(No. 144/2014)(Old No. 41/11) afresh on merits in accordance with
law.
21. Since the matter pertains to bona fide need and eviction, the
Rent Appellate Tribunal will decide the appeal within six months as an
outer limit strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by
any observations made by this Court and the High Court.
22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Divya Pandey
 Appeal allowed.