High Court Cannot Reappraise Concurrent Rent-Control Findings in Revision, Supreme Court Rules

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih restores eviction orders, holding the Punjab and Haryana High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

The Supreme Court on 21 July 2026 set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had reversed concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller, Nabha and the Appellate Authority, Patiala under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court held that the High Court, exercising civil revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, had impermissibly re-appreciated evidence to reach a different conclusion on the same facts. The bench restored the findings of both lower forums that the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement was genuine, and directed the respondent-tenant to deliver peaceful possession of the shop within two months.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The eviction proceedings were originally brought by one Kamla Devi against the respondent-tenant on two grounds: non-payment of rent, and bona fide requirement of the shop for herself and her son, Madan Mohan. The tenancy stood at Rs. 112.50 per month, and the landlord-tenant relationship was never in dispute.

Before the Rent Controller, the respondent-tenant argued that arrears had already been tendered on 3 June 2003 — covering rent from 17 July 1998 to 9 June 2003, together with Rs. 1,000 as interest and Rs. 1,100 as costs, totalling Rs. 8,740 — and that the claimed bona fide requirement was illusory. The tenant pointed out that Kamla Devi was 80 years old and, in his submission, unlikely to run a business; that another shop belonging to the landlord was being rented out by her son Adarsh Mohan; and that a third shop remained vacant.

The Rent Controller framed eight issues and decided all but one in favour of the landlord. The respondent-tenant was directed to hand over possession within three months. The Appellate Authority, Patiala affirmed this result. It reasoned that even though Kamla Devi had since died during the pendency of proceedings, the requirement of Madan Mohan independently survived and justified the eviction order.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a judgment dated 6 August 2018 in CR No. 1573 of 2011, reversed those findings. The Single Judge found that Kamla Devi had concealed the existence of the third shop during pleadings, disclosed it only in evidence, and had therefore not come to court with clean hands. On that basis, the revision petition was allowed and the eviction set aside. Madan Mohan's legal representatives then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

The Question of Bona Fide Requirement

Before turning to the High Court's interference, Justice Sanjay Karol surveyed the doctrine of bona fide requirement as it has developed across rent-control statutes. The Court referred to Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India, (2020) 12 SCC 506, where a three-judge bench traced rent-control legislation to the socio-economic conditions of the 1940s and 1950s and observed that such statutes were designed to balance the conflicting interests of landlords and tenants.

The judgment quoted at length from Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222, where a co-ordinate bench explained that the phrase “required bona fide” demands far more than a mere desire or whim: the need must be genuine, honest, and conceived in good faith. The test, the bench had held, requires the court to place itself “in the armchair of the landlord” and ask whether, on the substantiated facts, the need is natural, real, sincere, and honest. Importantly, once bona fides are established, the landlord's own choice of which accommodation to use to satisfy that need is to be respected — courts are not to substitute their own preference.

The Court also referred to Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, which distilled from earlier decisions that bona fide need must have an objective element, not merely a subjective desire for possession, so that the tenant's statutory protection is not rendered illusory.

Applying these standards to the facts, the Court found that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had concurrently held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord — extended to Madan Mohan — was established. The disputed third shop had been treated by both forums as being used for storage, not as alternative commercial accommodation genuinely available to the landlord. On the question of using space to store materials the Court observed, in a pointed aside, that even if the statement about garbage storage is accepted at face value, “one man's trash is another man's treasure.” The Court found no error in the landlord's position.

Why the High Court's Intervention Was Impermissible

The Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limits of Section 115 CPC in two respects: it re-appreciated the evidence independently, and it overturned concurrent factual findings without identifying any jurisdictional illegality or irregularity.

The judgment invoked three precedents to fix the boundaries of revisional power. In Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 270, the Court had held that the High Court in revision cannot set aside concurrent findings merely by taking a different view of the evidence; interference requires findings that are perverse or rest on non-consideration of material evidence.

The Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, specifically addressed revisional power in the rent-act context and drew a firm line: revisional jurisdiction “is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.”

Finally, a three-judge bench in Ambadas Khanduji Shinde v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar, (2017) 14 SCC 132 had held that under Section 115 CPC, the High Court cannot correct errors of fact or even law unless they go to the root of the issue of jurisdiction. Where lower courts have passed reasoned orders within their jurisdiction, the High Court commits error in interfering with those findings.

Applying these tests, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had done precisely what each of these authorities prohibits: it substituted its own reading of the evidence — particularly on the question of the third shop's use — for that of two forums that had examined the same material and reached the same result. No jurisdictional defect was identified. The revisional court's role had been converted, in effect, into a fresh appeal on facts.

Order

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order dated 6 August 2018 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CR No. 1573 of 2011. The concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, Nabha (order dated 27 May 2010) and the Appellate Authority, Patiala are affirmed. The respondent-tenant is directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the demised shop to the appellant's legal representatives within two months of the date of the judgment. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.