High Court Exceeds Revisional Jurisdiction by Reappreciating Evidence in Eviction Case

Case Snapshot

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

• Citation: 2026 INSC 730

• Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Augustine George Masih

• Date of Judgment: July 21, 2026

• Area of Law: Rent Control Law, Civil Procedure, Eviction

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. The High Court had reversed the eviction decree on the ground that the landlady had concealed the availability of a third shop. However, the lower courts had concurrently found that the third shop was used for storing garbage and was not suitable as an alternative accommodation. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The concept of bona fide requirement of the landlord must be viewed from the landlord's perspective, and the landlord's subjective choice of accommodation must be respected.

Relevant Facts

• Kamla Devi, the landlady, filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on two grounds: non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for herself and her son Madan Mohan.

• The Rent Controller, Nabha, and the Appellate Authority, Patiala, concurrently found in favour of the landlord and decreed eviction.

• The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, reversed the concurrent findings. It held that the landlady had not come with clean hands because s

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.