MIR SANUALLA Vs. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is by one of the tenants in the three tenements belonging to the landlord. He has suffered an order of eviction in the Court of the Munsiff where the Petition was presented for eviction and also by the District Judge who has confirmed it. The. Respondent-landlord who was the owner of tenements sued eviction of all the three tenants on the ground that he requires the premises in question for use and occupation of his own family. That the three tenements are residential is not in dispute. That the landlord lives in a rented premises is also not in dispute. On the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the landlord's need was established and therefore, eviction was ordered. Purring the pendency of the proceeding, one of the tenants voluntarily vacated one of the tenements. When the Revision Petitions of the two other tenants including the present petitioner was pending in the District Court, the other tenant also agreed to vacate the premises and reached settlement with the landlord and took some time. The District Judge has taken notice of that event. Nevertheless, he directed eviction of the present Revision petitioner upholding the findings recorded by the Munsiff in regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

(2.) Mr. Balakrishna Sastry, Learned Counsel for the Revision-petitioner-tenant urged before me the following three grounds:

(3.) I do not think there is any force in any one of the above contentions. Reliance placed by Mr. Sastry on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkateswaralu v. Motor and General Traders, AIR1975 SC 1409 , (1975 )1 SCC770 , [1975 ]3 SCR958 , 1975 (7 )UJ327 (SC ) is not really of much assistance to him. Undoubtedly, in that decision the Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J , as he then was, stated that even under Section 115 C.P.C., the High Court can interfere after taking notice of a new fact as was brought to the notice of the High Court in that case. What was brought to the notice of the High Court of Delhi in that case was that the landlord had obtained possession of another of his own premises where he could carry on his motor spare parts business. The High Court declined to take notice of the fact on the ground that under Section 115 C.P.C. they could not take notice of the fact. They refused to act on such new facts brought to its notice. The Supreme Court found that: the High Court was in error on the sole ground that the need of the landlord if satisfied there would be no cause of action surviving to present the original eviction Petition itself in the Court which was authorised to entertain such eviction Petitions In these circumstances, the High Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C, and dismissed the Revision Petition. In other words, the ratio of the decision is that whenever it touches upon the jurisdic-tion, the High Court should act accordingly under Section 115 C.P.C., and there is nothing new in the principle enunciated but what could be borne in mind is the fact that the landlord had obtained possession must remain undisputed before the High Court.