RAM JANKI MANDIR Vs. NURUDDIN BHARMAL

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4354 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 22, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4354 OF 2017
                [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.33992/2013]


RAM JANKI MANDIR                                                APPELLANT(S)


                                VERSUS



NURUDDIN BHARMAL                                               RESPONDENT(S)



                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      Leave granted.
2.     The  appellant/landlord  filed  a  petition  for  eviction   of   the
respondent/tenant  on  three  grounds,  i.e.  (i)   arrears  of  rent,  (ii)
nuisance; and (iii) need for reconstruction.  The Trial  Court  allowed  the
eviction on the grounds of arrears of  rent  and  need  for  reconstruction.
The same was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.   The  respondent/tenant
moved the High Court. On the ground of need  for  reconstruction,  the  High
Court took the view that the Trial Court  should  have  ascertained  whether
the  respondent/tenant  was  willing   to  reoccupy   the   premises   after
reconstruction and having not done that, the  matter  was  remitted  to  the
Trial Court.
3.    No doubt,  there  is  a  statutory  requirement  of  ascertainment  of
willingness of the tenant as to whether he would  be  prepared  to  reoccupy
the premises after reconstruction.  But on the facts of the case,  there  is
a concurrent finding of arrears of rent and that  aspect  is  not  seriously
disputed also.  Therefore, in any  case,  the  eviction  on  the  ground  of
arrears of rent should have been sustained.  Once that is  sustained,  there
is no question of ascertainment of  the  willingness  of  the  tenant  after
reconstruction.
4.    In that view of the matter, we set aside  the  judgment  of  the  High
Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the Trial  Court,  which
was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
5.    However, we  record  the  gracious  submission  made  by  the  learned
counsel for the appellant/landlord that in the peculiar facts of this  case,
the appellant/landlord does not intend to recover the arrears of  rent  from
the respondent/tenant.
6.    The appeal is allowed.
7.    Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
8.    There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]
      NEW DELHI;
      MARCH 22, 2017.