"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure": Supreme Court Says Landlord's Choice Of Accommodation Must Be Respected, Revisional Court Can't Reappreciate Evidence

"Simply because another view of the evidence may be taken, is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot reappreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the subjective choice of a landlord regarding their bona fide requirement for a specific premises must be respected by the courts, and tenants cannot dictate which alternative accommodation the landlord should use.

The original landlady, Kamla Devi, had filed an eviction suit against the respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, citing non-payment of rent and a bona fide requirement to run a boutique for herself and her son. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently ruled in favour of the landlady and ordered eviction. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed these findings in a revision petition, reasoning that the landlady had concealed the existence of a third vacant shop, which was allegedly being used to store garbage, and thus had not approached the court with clean hands.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by reappreciating evidence to set aside concurrent findings of fact. The court was also called upon to determine the parameters of a landlord's bona fide requirement and whether the availability of an alternative space, used for a different purpose, negates such a requirement.

Scope Of Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 115 CPC

The Supreme Court heavily criticised the approach taken by the High Court, reiterating that the scope of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is inherently limited. The bench noted that a revisional court is not a court of first appeal and cannot substitute its own views merely because a different interpretation of the evidence is possible.

The court relied on a catena of previous judgments, including Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, to underscore that interference is only justified if the lower court's findings are perverse or suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional error. The bench observed that the trial and appellate courts had properly appreciated the evidence and passed reasoned orders within their conferred jurisdiction.

"Simply because another view of the evidence may be taken, is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction."

Subjective Choice Of The Landlord Is Paramount

Delving into the concept of bona fide requirement, the bench referenced landmark decisions like Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta and Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini. The court emphasised that the Rent Control legislation is not meant to deprive a landlord of the right to enjoy their own property, provided the need is genuine, honest, and conceived in good faith.

The judges firmly stated that when a landlord possesses multiple accommodations, the choice of which premises to utilise rests entirely with them. A court cannot step into the shoes of the landlord and dictate that another available accommodation must satisfy their business or personal needs.

"In the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court."

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

Addressing the High Court's specific reasoning that the landlady had concealed a third shop which was being used to store garbage, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic view. The bench found no flaw in the landlady's actions, noting that if the alleged alternate accommodation was indeed being used for storing waste material, it did not vitiate her need for the currently rented shop to run a boutique.

The court remarked that the phrase bona fide translates to acting in good faith, and the long-standing plea of both the landlady and her son to use the specific tenanted premises had been consistently proven before the fact-finding courts. The High Court's attempt to use the existence of the garbage-filled shop to label the eviction plea as lacking clean hands was thus deemed legally unsustainable.

"The old saying is, ‘one man’s trash is another man’s treasure’. So, even if the statement is accepted as it is, we fail to see what is wrong with it. Let it be used as such."

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ruling it unsustainable in law. The concurrent findings and eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller, Nabha, and the Appellate Authority, Patiala, were affirmed and restored. The respondent-tenant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised shop to the appellants within a period of two months.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026