# NETA RAM v. JIWAN LAL

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 623
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-04-07
- **Bench:** S. K. Dass, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/neta-ram-v-jiwan-lal-2330
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Reni Control-Re-building of prem.ise8-Rona .fide8 and
means of the landlord-East Punjab L rban Rent Restriction
Act, /!14.? (East Punj. 3 ':! 1949), "·
J.5(5)~Potiala and .East
Puf\jab States Union Urban Rent Restrirtion Ordinance, 2006
B. K. (8 of 2006 BK), ss. 13, 16(4), 19.
The appJication for eviction against the appellant was
based inter alia on the ground tha.t the premises in suit were
dilapidated and the landlord wished to rebuild them after
dismantling the struc;ture.
l'he Rent Controller dismissed the
application observing that there was hardly any proof that the
bu,[ding was in a dilapidated condiri9n and that the landlord
had no means to rebuild the premises. The appellate authority
con~irined the finding
l:olding that the premises w{re
in good condition and that 1be l<indlord was not, in good
faith, wanting to replace. lite building. An applica!ion pur:or~
ting to be under s. 15(5) of 1he Fait Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction A ct, 1949, was made before the High Court. The
High Court following an earliCr decision of the sa1ne Court
all Jwed the revision peti1ion holdini.!: that in determining the
question of f'jectment, \vhat needs alone to be considert:d is
whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the per1nises
and that the condition of the premises is 'a wholJy irrelevant
factor'.
Held, that the investigation by the Rent Controller cannot be confined only
to
the txistfnce of an intentinn
in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intf'ntion
must be hone~tJy l·eld in relation to the surrounding- circumstances, otherwise the very purpo~e of tlie Rent Restriction Act
would be defeated. ff the landlords wt:re to come forward and
to get tenants turnt"d ·out, on the bare nlea that they want to
recon'ltfLICt the .house witho,1t first establishing, that the
pl~a
is bona fide with re~ard to all
circurnst;:ince~, viz. that the
h,"luSes need rtconstruct.ion or that they have the meari.s to
reconstruct them.
Held, further, that wheo the Tribunals have examined
the facts after instructing them!lelves correctly about law, a
C:turt of Revision should be slow to interf("'re \Vith rhe decisioh, thus reached, unle9'.i it demonstrates by its own decision
the impropriely of the order which it seeks to revise.
Under s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 19t9, the powers of the High Court do not include
January 1'1.
1962
Nda Ram
v.
Jiw.n1 Lt.I
624 SUPREME COURT REPORnl [1962) SUPP.
power!\ to pt"rverse a conrurrrnt finding witliout showinsr h.ow
tho~e finrfin_~" arl"' l"'rroneous and without giving any substantial
reason(. for its findin~.
H2lfl, also, that a case cannot ht! an authoritv on a pair.t
of fart an cl rach c•;• has to he examintd in the light of the
circufTlstanct-s t-xisting.
Moti
11a'11 v. Suroj Bhan, (1960] 2 S. C. R,. 896,
r.frrred to.
Civrr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal
No, 646 of i 961.
Appeal by enPcial lPBve from the jud~ent
and dPere11 dMPd A nril 7, 1961. of thn Punj!lb
Hi~h C'llut in Clivil Revision No. 31'>4 of 1959.
Go'f!Gl Singh, for the appPlla.tes.
Rishan Narain and Naunit lal, for the respondrnt No. I.
Hlfl2 .. fammrv, 17.-The Judgment of the
Court was dPlivered bv
lliJayat•lfoh J.
HmAYA'l'TTT.LAH, J.-Thi~ is nn appral by
special loav<' ag:ainat. an orrl<>r of tho High Court of
Punj'lb at Cha.nrlhra.rh, rlBt<'d April 7, 1961.
The apnellant.s a.ro five tenants, who have
been evictecl from certain shops and chobaras in the
town of Patia.fa, on t hA a11plication of the first
rt'sponrlcnt, thti landlord. The application by the
landlord was made in ,Jnne, 1957, under s. 13 of
the P11.ti:da and E'l.st. Punjab StatAs Union Urban
R<'nt lfostri1·tion Ordinance, 20(}6 BK (No. VIII of
:?OOfi BK).
The grounds urgt•rl by the landlord
wcrr (•\) nen.pavment of rent b.v the tC'nants, (b)
non pnym••nt of houeo tax by tho t<>nants and (cl
that the shops WC're in a state of g-ri-a.t disrepair
iincl W<>re clilapidatcd, and the landlord wished to
rebuild tlwrn aftn dismantling the structun

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
623
NETA RAM
v.
JIWAN LAL
(S. K. DASS, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Reni Control-Re-building of prem.ise8-Rona .fide8 and
means of the landlord-East Punjab L rban Rent Restriction
Act, /!14.? (East Punj. 3 ':! 1949), "·
J.5(5)~Potiala and .East
Puf\jab States Union Urban Rent Restrirtion Ordinance, 2006
B. K. (8 of 2006 BK), ss. 13, 16(4), 19.
The appJication for eviction against the appellant was
based inter alia on the ground tha.t the premises in suit were
dilapidated and the landlord wished to rebuild them after
dismantling the struc;ture.
l'he Rent Controller dismissed the
application observing that there was hardly any proof that the
bu,[ding was in a dilapidated condiri9n and that the landlord
had no means to rebuild the premises. The appellate authority
con~irined the finding
l:olding that the premises w{re
in good condition and that 1be l<indlord was not, in good
faith, wanting to replace. lite building. An applica!ion pur:or~
ting to be under s. 15(5) of 1he Fait Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction A ct, 1949, was made before the High Court. The
High Court following an earliCr decision of the sa1ne Court
all Jwed the revision peti1ion holdini.!: that in determining the
question of f'jectment, \vhat needs alone to be considert:d is
whether the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the per1nises
and that the condition of the premises is 'a wholJy irrelevant
factor'.
Held, that the investigation by the Rent Controller cannot be confined only
to
the txistfnce of an intentinn
in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intf'ntion
must be hone~tJy l·eld in relation to the surrounding- circumstances, otherwise the very purpo~e of tlie Rent Restriction Act
would be defeated. ff the landlords wt:re to come forward and
to get tenants turnt"d ·out, on the bare nlea that they want to
recon'ltfLICt the .house witho,1t first establishing, that the
pl~a
is bona fide with re~ard to all
circurnst;:ince~, viz. that the
h,"luSes need rtconstruct.ion or that they have the meari.s to
reconstruct them.
Held, further, that wheo the Tribunals have examined
the facts after instructing them!lelves correctly about law, a
C:turt of Revision should be slow to interf("'re \Vith rhe decisioh, thus reached, unle9'.i it demonstrates by its own decision
the impropriely of the order which it seeks to revise.
Under s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 19t9, the powers of the High Court do not include
January 1'1.
1962
Nda Ram
v.
Jiw.n1 Lt.I
624 SUPREME COURT REPORnl [1962) SUPP.
power!\ to pt"rverse a conrurrrnt finding witliout showinsr h.ow
tho~e finrfin_~" arl"' l"'rroneous and without giving any substantial
reason(. for its findin~.
H2lfl, also, that a case cannot ht! an authoritv on a pair.t
of fart an cl rach c•;• has to he examintd in the light of the
circufTlstanct-s t-xisting.
Moti
11a'11 v. Suroj Bhan, (1960] 2 S. C. R,. 896,
r.frrred to.
Civrr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal
No, 646 of i 961.
Appeal by enPcial lPBve from the jud~ent
and dPere11 dMPd A nril 7, 1961. of thn Punj!lb
Hi~h C'llut in Clivil Revision No. 31'>4 of 1959.
Go'f!Gl Singh, for the appPlla.tes.
Rishan Narain and Naunit lal, for the respondrnt No. I.
Hlfl2 .. fammrv, 17.-The Judgment of the
Court was dPlivered bv
lliJayat•lfoh J.
HmAYA'l'TTT.LAH, J.-Thi~ is nn appral by
special loav<' ag:ainat. an orrl<>r of tho High Court of
Punj'lb at Cha.nrlhra.rh, rlBt<'d April 7, 1961.
The apnellant.s a.ro five tenants, who have
been evictecl from certain shops and chobaras in the
town of Patia.fa, on t hA a11plication of the first
rt'sponrlcnt, thti landlord. The application by the
landlord was made in ,Jnne, 1957, under s. 13 of
the P11.ti:da and E'l.st. Punjab StatAs Union Urban
R<'nt lfostri1·tion Ordinance, 20(}6 BK (No. VIII of
:?OOfi BK).
The grounds urgt•rl by the landlord
wcrr (•\) nen.pavment of rent b.v the tC'nants, (b)
non pnym••nt of houeo tax by tho t<>nants and (cl
that the shops WC're in a state of g-ri-a.t disrepair
iincl W<>re clilapidatcd, and the landlord wished to
rebuild tlwrn aftn dismantling the structun•s. The
lanrllorrl :l\·orr<'rl that he had obtained sanction of
the i\lnnicipal Committ<'e to a propo;rd plan of conRtrnction, awl nc1•um11lat<'<I somo huilrling material
before making the application.
The tl'nants rc>'istrd the application.
The
Rc>nt C•.mtrollcr fram<·q i's111·s 1elating to the three
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
625
grounds; bnt the first two have ceased to be material now. On the issue relating to the third ground,
the Rent Controller held that in deciding whether
the tenants should be ordered to hand over possession to the landlord, the Courts must have regard
to the bona .fiiles of the the request of the landlord,
which meant that the desire to rebuild the premises
should be honPstlv held by the landlord, but that
the conrlition of the building also played an important part in determining whether the landlord had
the intPntion genuinelv and was not using this excuse
as a device to get rid of the tenants. In this connection, thA Rent Controller observed that the state of
the buildin!!', the mPaos of the landlord, and the possibility of a better yield by way of rPnt, all entered
into the appraisal of the landlord's state of mind.
Examining the case from this angle, the Rent controller held that there was hardly any proof that
the building was in a dilapidated conrlition. One
solitary witness who testified to this, admitted that
he had not seen the building from the inside. The
landlord himself did not give evidence. On the
other hand, there was ample evidence that the
huildin!( was good. As regards the financial status
of the landlord, the witnfB~ea who stated on his
behalf that he could spend Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000
knew nothing abol't his means. Even the landlord's
brother. who conducted this case on behi.lf of the
landlord, could not give any details. The plan
showed a building requiring about Rs. 20,000 to
build. The landlord had an income of Rs. 200/-
per month. and hs family consisted of his wife and
five chiJrlren. 'J'he Rent Contro!IPr, therefore, h1>ld
that he had no means to rebuild the prPmises. The
Rent Controller did not feel impressed by. the alleged purcha •c of 40 bags of cement, because a.
greater part of the cement was used up already in
building two or three latrines, and the quantity
left was whrJlly insufficient for the proposed building. He, therefore, decided the issue against the
landlord.
1962
Jveta Rom
v,
Jiwan Lal
Hidq.vatuituh J.
IM!
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19€'.') SUPP.
On appeal, these findinp:R w<'ro !'Onfirmed by
the appellate aut.hority, who ht•ld that th" •hop~
and chobaraa were in good condition, and that
the landlord was not, in good faith, w.,.ntiug to
replace the buildin)!, wh1·n ho ha'! 110 mea11s to
build it. Again't the order of the "pp<·llat" authority, an application for revisi"n ru1 p"rting t•> be
under s. 15(15) of the E•st Punjab C'rlm11 Rent
Restriction Act, 1949 (:l of 1949), was fif,.,J in tt."
High Court.
Thie application was 11]J.,w,·d.
The
learned single J udg<' J'OSed the question thus:
" The question in the pr<>sent case is
whether there is a bona fide desire to rebuild
the pro>miseo?".
·
He referred to an earlier deciRion of a
Divi~innal
Bench of that Court (<'ivil Re\•ision No. 22~ of
l!l60), in which GnRain, J., laid down the law in the
following worrlR:
" It iR pMtincnt to note that tho wur<I
'huilding' in th<' aforesaid clause is not rpwfi.
fkd by the words 'requiring reconRtruction'
or 'requiring rebuilding'. Tho landlord can,
in thofe circumstances, require any building
for the re-erection of thfl ea.me, and when in
any case a claim to that effect is made hy him
the only point that has to be determined i•
whethtr on the facts 11.nd cirCUll!Mtsnces of
that case his
requirement is bona fide.
A
buildin2, for in8tance-, may not be immediately unsafe, but its condition may be such
that unlN•B it is reconRtructed it mav involve
the landlord at a later date very ·heavy expenditnre. All rounrl a particular buildin (
different types of buildings may have be~n
constructed of an entirely d1ffnent d~sign and
•,be particular building· in question may then
ho looking very ugly and the landlord may
want to bring the same In conformity with
the struotures a.round it.''
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
627
After quoting this passage, the learned Judge
observed that the consideration which must weigh
in determining the question of ejectment is whether
the landlord genuinely wants to rebuild the premises, and further, that the actual condition of the
premises is "a wholly irrelevant factor". In dealing with th" merits of the case, the learned Judge
refern·d to the offer of the landlord to put back
the tf.'nants in possession, if the premises were not
demolished within a month of his obtaining possession thereof, and concluded, without discussing
the evidence, as follows :
"Upon the evidence on record it seems to
me established beyond all doubt that the
landlord
genuinely and bona fide requires
these premises for re building."
He, therefore, sPt aside the concurrent orders of
the two Tribunals, and ordered the eviction of the
tenants, giving them two month's time in which to
vacate the premises.
Two questions . have been argued in this
appeal. The first is that the revision application is
incompetent, because under s.10 (4) of ·the Patiala
and East Punjab States Union rrban Rent Restriction Ordinan<ie, 'the decision of the appellate
authority and subject only to such decision, an order
of the Uontroller shall be final and shall not be liable
to be called in question in any Court of law whether in a suit or other proceeding by way of appeal
or revision". It is contended that s.15(5) of the
E,ist Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which
conferred a powt'r of revision on the High Court
does not apply to the present case, because this
case did not arise in proceedings taken under the
Act. The n<· 'l:t contention is that the int9rpretation
placed by the learne.d Judge upon s. 13(3) (a) (iii)
read withs. 13 (3) (b) is erroneous, and that the
High Court had no power to reverse a concurrent
findiug of fact without itself re-appraising the evidence, if at all.
1962
N1t.J Uam
Y.
Jiwan Lal
Hidayatu!lah J.
196t
[NM Rom
v.
JU-Ram
H i"'rl<Jlu/h J.
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
On the first point, the learned counsPI for the
respondent.s relies upon a deoifion of this Court re·
ported in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan('), where it was
held that a revision application in analogous cir·
cumstanoee was maintainable. In our opinion,
even if a revision application lay, the learned single
Judge was in error in his interpretation of the rf'levant sections of the Ordinance, and in reversing a
concurrent finding of fact, without giving any s·1bstantia.I reasons.
Section 13 of the Ordinance, omitting portions
which are irrelevant here, reads as follow~:
"13.
(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, a tenant in posseesion of a building or
rented land shall not be evicted tber,·from in
f'Xecution of 11 decree paesed bef0rc or afwr
the commencement of this Ordinance or other-
"ise and whether before or after the te1mination of the tenancy, except in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
x
x
x
(3) (a.) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to
put the hmdlorcl in poeseseion.
x
x
x
(iii) in the case of any building, if be
requires it for the re .erect ion of
that building or for its replacement
by another building, or for the erection of other building ;
x
x
x
(b) The Controller shall, if he i• sntiofo'd
that the claim of the landlord is bona.-
fide, make an order directing the tf nant
to put the landlord in posseBSion of the
building or rented land on such date as
1 I ) t1960J 2 S.C.R. S96.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
629
may be specified by the Controller, .and
if the Controller is not so satisfied, he
shall make an order rejecting the application;
:x
x
x
(4) whece a landlord who has obtained possession of building or rented land in pursuance of an order under ... sub-paragraph (iii)
of the aforesaid paragraph (a) put that
building to any use or lets it out to any
tenant other then the tenant evicted
from it, the tenant who has been evicted
may apply to the Controller for an order
directing that he shall be restored to
possession of such building or rented
land and the Controller shall make an
order accordingly ...... "
Reading these provisions as a whole, it is
obvious that if the landlo"'1's need be genuiP.e and
he satisfies the Controller, he can obtain possession
of the building or the land, as the case may be.
If, however, he does not re·erect the building and
puts it to a:1y other use or lets it out to another
tenant, the former tenant can apply to be put back
in possession. Clause (b) clearly dhows both affirmatively and negatively that the landlord must
satisfy the Uontrolln about his claim, before he
can obtain an order in his favour.
The Controller
has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the
claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the
Controller must be satisfied about the reality of
the claim made by the landlord, and this can only
be established by looking at all the surrounding
circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put
to a more profitable use after construction, the
means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough
that the landlord comes forward, and says that he
entertains a particular intention, however strongly,
1962
Nila Ram
..
Jiwan Lal
HJ.d1yatul/ah 1.
111111
v.
Jiroan Loi
H"4;1auJlaA J.
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
said to be entertained by him. Tho clause speaks
not of the bona fide& of the landlord, hut says, on
the other hand, that the claim of the la11dlord
that he requires
the building fur reconstruction
and re-erection must be booo fide, that is to say.
honest in the oircumstanoes. It is impossible, therefore, to hold that the investigation by the Controller
should be confined only to the l'Xist11nce of an intention to reconstruct, in the mind oi the landlord. This
intention must be honestly held in rolat.ion to the
surrounding
circumstance~.
In our opinion, the
interpretation placed by the l'unjab High Court
(in the dcoi.llion of Gosain, J.) puts too narrow a
construction, and leaves very little for the Controller to decide. It is well-known that Rent Restric.
tion Acts were passed in view of the shortage of
houses and the High rents
which were Leing
demanded by landlords.
The very pu1 pose of
the Rent Hestrictlon Acts would be defrated, if
the landlords were to c~o forward and to get
tenants turned out, on the bare plea. that they
want to reconstruct the houses, without first
establishing that the plea is bona fide with regard
to all the circumstances, viz., that the houses need
reconstruction or that they have the means to
reconstruct them, etc. The two Tribunals below
had gone into the matter thoroughly, and had
agreed that the landlord had neither the means
to reconstruct the builrlin~ nor had he made any
attempt to face croBB-examination at1 a party. They
were also of the opinion that the building was in
a good state and did not need to be pulled down
or reconstructed.
With such clear findings, one
would expect that a revising Court, however vide
ita powers may be, would, at least, go into tho
'th;:tion over again, if it was going to depart from
unanimous conclusion. It is hardly neoe888.ry
to go into the question of the exknt of the powers
of the High Court under s. 15 (5) of the Rent
Restriction Act. They have been adverted to in
the ruling of tbfa Court. above mentioned.
'J Lt
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
631
do not, however, include the power to reverse
concurrent findings,
without showing how those
findings are erroneous. In the present case, the
learned Judge has 'given his ooncluaion without
adverting to single piece of evidence, from which
his conclusion was drawn. In these ciruumstances
it cannot be said that he had examined the propriety o( the order sought to be revised, even under
the provisions of the law be was administering.
Learned counsel relying upon the case to
which we have already referred, said that there
the s11nction by the Municipal Comn~ittee was
taken into consideration in deciding thn need of
the landlord. The facts in that ruse are not fully
stated, and from the observations, it would appear
that there was other evidence besides the sanction
by the l\lunicipal Committee, on which the conclusion of the High Court was supported. In any
event, a case cannot be an authority on a point of
fact, and each ca°'e will have tu be examined in
the light of the circumstances existing in it. In
the present case, the two Tribunals specially appointed t > consid .. r these matters, went, thoroughly into
the question, and discu~sed it from a correct angle.
If th''Y h>id examined the facts aftei: instructing
thems~lves correctly about the law, a Court of
revision should be slow to interfere with the decision thus reached, unless it demonstrates by its
own decision, the impropriety of the order, which
it seeks to revise.
No attempt of this kind has
been mad!l in this case, and in our opinion, the
High Court was not justified in reversing the clear
fiuding.
In the result, this appeal must be allowed.
The order of the High Court is set aside, and that
of the appellate authority is restored. The landlord shall p~y the costs here and in the High
Court.
Appeal allowed.
1962
Neta Ram
••
Jiwan Lal
Hidoyalul/a!i J.