PRAKASHCHANDRA Vs. SHARADCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a settled position of law that the landlord has his own choice of the house unless he uses that choice with an oblique motive of getting an eviction order against the tenant on the pretext of this choice. In the instant case, it is amply proved that the landlord is suffering with an ailments of the knee joints for which it is necessary for him to live on the ground floor and he has chosen to reside in the portion occupied by the present tenant which is below the portion occupied by his family on the upper floor. As such the choice of the landlord cannot be set aside only because it may be said that the other portion may be available for him for his residence. In the instant case in view of the offers made by the landlord to the tenant it is manifest that the landlord wanted to accommodate the tenant, still the tenant was insistant in occupying the same portion which is in his possession although he is posted outside of Indore for quite some time.

(2.) THE Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhary [(1988) 2 SCC 173] has held that although the powers of the High Court in exercise of revisional powers arc somewhat wider than the similar powers under S. 115 CPC, the power of revision under the Rent Control Acts does not entitle the High Court to enter into the merits of the factual controversies between the parties and to reverse the findings of fact in this regard. As such the High Court can exercise wider powers than the powers under revision, but those powers have to be exercised only if the Court finds that the order of the lower Court is perverse or the appreciation of the findings of fact arc such which have caused the failure of justice. In the instant case on perusing the judgment of the lower Court I find that the lower Court has examined in details the evidence led by the parties and has properly appreciated the same. There is no such perversity in the findings which has occasioned the failure of justice.

(3.) IN the result the revision petition is dismissed. (1988) 2 SCC 173 followed.