1992 (11) TMI 297 - SC - Indian Laws

Determinations of bona fide need and comparative hardship are factual; landlord's need upheld and eviction granted

GURBACHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Versus SALIABI ALIAS BIBIJAN

The SC held that determinations of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship are factual questions, and the HC erred by reappraising evidence beyond ... - The Supreme Court of India adjudicated on two civil appeals concerning the same building: Civil Appeal No. 4212 of 1982 filed by the tenant and Civil Appeal No. 4213 of 1982 filed by the landlord. The tenant's appeal involved the upstairs portion leased for residential purposes but used as a godown, while the landlord's appeal involved the lower portion leased for business purposes.The trial court and the first appellate court both found that the landlord had a 'bona fide requirement' for both premises for residence and business. However, the High Court, on revision, acknowledged the landlord's bona fide requirement but ruled in favor of the tenant regarding the lower portion due to 'comparative hardship.'Mr. P.S. Poti, representing the landlord, argued that the High Court unjustifiably interfered with the factual findings of the lower courts, citing principles from K.A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed. Conversely, Mr. Harish Salve, representing the tenant, contended the tenant's long-term occupation and the landlord's current tenancy elsewhere undermined her bona fide claim.The Supreme Court held that 'bona fide requirement' and 'comparative hardship' are factual questions, and the High Court erred in re-evaluating evidence, which is beyond its revisional power. Consequently, the Court allowed the landlord's appeal, dismissed the tenant's appeal, and decreed eviction for both premises, without orders as to costs.