High Court Cannot Act as a First Appellate Court in Rent Revision; Concurrent Findings on Landlord’s Bona Fide Need Cannot Be Overturned by Reappreciating Evidence In Revision: Supreme Court

Case Name: Madan Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) Through LRs.

Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 730

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, could not reappreciate evidence and substitute its own factual view for concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority merely because another view was possible. Revisional interference is justified only where findings are perverse, material evidence has been ignored, or there is an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. On bona fide requirement, the Court reiterated that the landlord’s need must be genuine, sincere and conceived in good faith; however, once such need is established, the landlord’s choice of the premises best suited for that requirement must ordinarily be respected and the court cannot impose its own preference.

Summary: Kamla Devi instituted eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the respondent-tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the shop for herself and her son, Madan Mohan. While the rent arrears were tendered, the tenant disputed the bona fide requirement, principally relying upon the alleged availability of another shop belonging to the landlord. The Rent Controller accepted the landlord’s case and ordered eviction, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the concurrent findings, observing that Kamla Devi had failed to disclose the availability of a third shop and had therefore not approached the court with clean hands. The Supreme Court found that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority had already considered the factual position concerning the other premises and had concurrently accepted the bona fide requirement. The mere fact that another shop was being used for storing waste material could not justify a fresh reassessment of the evidence by the High Court in revision.

Reiterating the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court relied on Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh and Ambadas Khanduji Shinde v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar to hold that revision cannot be treated as a first appeal permitting reconsideration of factual findings. Since the authorities below had passed reasoned orders within their jurisdiction, the High Court had erred in interfering with their concurrent conclusions.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment and restored the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller, Nabha and the Appellate Authority, Patiala. The respondent was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the shop to the appellants within two months from the date of judgment.