Appeal No 768 of 1972
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 24 8 71 of the Delhi High Court in RSA No 13767
GN Dikshit and RN Dikshit for the Appellant
OP Malhotra SN Mehta Uma Datta Sat Pal and M Iyengar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J Jangbir appellant is a tenant of a room in a house which was purchased by the respondent Mahavir Prasad Gupta on 15th May 1956 for Rs 1930 shown in his sale deed as situated in Khasra No 203 Khewat No 1 situated at Village Chowkri Mubarkabad Delhi Province within the abadi of Onkar Nagar II
The landlord owner had filed a suit for the ejectment of the appellant and for recovery 9f rent which was dismissed by a Subordinate Judge of Delhi on 26th May 1966 on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act  which provided the only modes of relief for aggrieved landlords by proceeding under the Act
The respondent landlord had alleged that the suit lay in the ordinary Civil Court and that it was governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the house in which the appellant was the tenant of a room fell outside the area to which the Act was applicable
The short question on which the case was decided was whether the house of the respondent was situated in an area to which the Act had been applied by a notification under Section 507a of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 dated 7th January 1960
published in the Delhi Gazette on 17th January 1960 read with the notification dated 12th April 1962 under Section 1 sub
section 2 of the Act
published in the Gazette of India on 21st April 1962
672 The operative part of the notification of the Delhi Administration reads as follows No F 9559 RS In exercise of the powers conferred by clause a of Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 66 of 1957 the Corporation with the previous approval of the Central Government hereby declares that the fol lowing localities mentioned in the Schedule given below hitherto forming part of the rural areas shall cease to be rural area
Thereafter was given a schedule and then came the heading Shahdara Zone
The schedule has 5 columns
The first is for the Serial No The second is for the name of the Revenue estate which is translation of Mauza said to be an area composed of several villages
The third column is for the name of the actual village or colony of the Mauza
It is headed Name of Colony Village pro posed to be included in the urban area
The fourth column is for what is called the square number
The last and the fifth column was headed KhasraKilla Nos
covered by the Colo nyVillages
We are
concerned here with serial No 7 which has the entries indicated below made under the appropriate number of each column 1 No 7 2
Chowkri Mubarakabad
Onkar Nagar
Lekhu Pura
Square No Not given
Across Onkar Nagar are shown 238 242 240 234 235 236 234 231 230 and 271 and across Lekhu Pura are shown 215 to 217 211212 199 to 203
The notification published in the Gazette of India on 21st April 1962 may be reproduced in toto
It reads New Delhi the 12th  April 1962
GSR No 486 In exercise of powers con ferred by the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 59 of 1958 the Central Government hereby extends all the provisions of the said Act  a to the areas which immediately before the 7th April 1958 were included in the Notified Area Committee Najafgarh and the Notified Area Commit tee Narela and b to the localties mentioned in the schedule to the notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi No F 9559 RS dated the 28th December 1959 published in the Delhi Gazette Part IV dated the 7th 673 January 1960 and which by virtue of that notifi cation have formed part of the urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
No 35861 Delhi I AV Venkatasubban Deputy Secretary
The Subordinate Judge very rightly observed that there was no dispute between the parties that Mauza Chowkri Muba rakabad was included
within the limits of Delhi Municipal Corporation by the notification dated 7th January 1960
He pointed out that there was no indication of a sub diviSion of Khasra No 203 showing that any part of it was divided or separately numbered
The disappointed plaintiff landlord was however not content with so obviously correct a finding
He appealed to the District Judge who agreed entirely with the Trial Court and also recorded a finding of fact that Khasra No 203 situated in the Mauza or Revenue Estate of Chowkri Mubara kabad was covered by the notifications
It seems to us that no other inference was reasonably possible
The plaintiff respondent seems in a gambling spirit to have decided to try his luck by a second appeal to the High Court
What surprises 
us is that a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court without considering the objects of the notifications or discussing any principle of construction of documents which could indicate that a point of law had really arisen for decision before him decided to set aside the concurrent findings of fact and thereby patently exceeded the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code
We need hardly say that there cannot be any doubt that he did so
We are surprised that the law laid down by this Court and before that by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have been so completely ignored
By way of example we may refer to the following cases Deity Pattabhiramaswamy vs
section Hanyamayya  Ors
1 Sri Sinha Ramanuja Jeer  Ors
vs Shri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer  Anr2 Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao3 Bhusawal Borough Municipality vs Amalgamated Electricity Co Ltd  Anr4 Secy of State vs Rameshwa ram Devasthanam  Ors5Anup Mahto vs Mira Dusadh  Ors6 Sahebrao Narayanrao Deshmukh vs Jaiwantrao Yadaorao Deshmukh  Ant7 It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the con struction of a document is always a question of law
Reli ance was placed upon Meenakshi Mills Madurai vs The Commissioner of income tax Madras8 and Nedunuri Kames waramma vs Sampati Subba Rao Supra
This Court has never laid down that inferences from contents of a documents always raise questions of law
Indeed in 1 AIR 1959 SC 57
2 19621 2SCR 509
3  4  5 AIR 1934 PC
6 AIR 1934 PC 5
7 AIR 1933 PC 171
8 1956 SCR 691
674 Nedunuri Kameshwaramma s case supra this Court observed atp 215 216 A construction of documents unless they are documents of rifle produced by the parties to prove a question of fact does not involve an issue of law unless it can be shown that the material evidence contained in them was misunderstood by the Court of fact
The documents in this case which have been the subject of three separate considera tions were the Land Registers the Amarkam and Bhooband Accounts and the Adangal Registers to gether with certain documents derived from the Zamindari records
None of these documents can be correctly described as a document of title whatev er its evidentiary value otherwise
We think that unless interpretation of a document involves the question of application of a principle of law mere inferences from or the evi dentiary value of a document generally raises only a question of fact
We think that if the learned Judge of the High Court had cared to consider the provisions of law relating to the extension of the Act to urban areas
or to bear in mind the correct principles of construction
of documents or tried to appreciate the true nature of the case before him he could not have possibly interfered with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below simply because the number of the Khasra in which the house of respond ent lay was not mentioned against both the portions of Chowki Mubarakabad but wholly against Lekhu Pura
In so far as the assumption from the en tries in column 5 of  the notification could be that the whole of No 203 fell in Lekhupura it was an obviously erroneous assumption
A clerical error was the most that was indicated by such an entry
But even so it left no doubt that the whole Khasra No 203 was duly notified
1 1 This Act may be called the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
2 It extends to the area included within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and  to such urban areas within the limits of the Municipal Corpora tion of Delhi as are specified in the first ScheduIe Provided that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend this Act or any provision thereof to any other urban area included within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or exclude any area from the operation of this Act or any provision thereof
It is evident that the proviso does not require the mention of anything more than the urban area which is to be included or excluded from the limits of the Municipal Corporation That area was suffi ciently clearly indicated by entries in columns 2 and 3 meant for  the Revenue 675 Estate or Mauza and for the colony or the village
It is clear from these that the whole of Mauza Chowkri Mubarakabad and the whole of Onkar Nagar and Lekhupura were meant to be notified
The mere fact that the last column was not filled up by whoever drew up the notification in such a manner as to show precisely where each Khasra number lay did not affect the question whether the area to be included was sufficiently indicated or not
The well known principles of interpretation applicable to such cases are a Firstly a document must be construed as a whole
b Secondly it has to be so construed as not to reduce what was meant or being done by it to a patent absurdity
c Third ly if any entry of a column appears to have been carelessly made so as not to give a correct indi cation of what was otherwise clearly capable of being inferred from the objects and rest of the contents of such a notification the slight error due obviously to inadvertence would not matter on an application of the principle Falsa Demonstra tio non nocet
A deliberate intention to omit a part of a Khasra number the whole of which is given in the notification of 7th January 1960 could not possibly be inferred
When we look at Section 507 of the Delhi Munic ipal Corporation Act 1957 we find the relevant part runs as follows 507
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act a the Corporation with the previous approv al of the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette declare that any portion of the rural areas shall cease to be included therein and upon the issue of such notification that portion shall be included in and form part of the urban areas b the Corporation with the previous ap proval of the Central Government may by notifica tion in the Official Gazette i exempt the rural areas or any portion thereof from such of the provisions of this Act as it deems fit
ii Levy taxes rates fees and other charges in the rural areas or any portion thereof at rates lower than those at which such taxes rates fees and other charges are levied in the urban areas or exempt such areas or portion from any such tax rate fee or other charge Thus we find the provisions of Section 1 2 of the Act as well as of Section 507a and b of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act refer only to areas and not to mere Khasra Nos
which are convenient divisions for the purposes of indicating what lay within each area
The Khasra is often spoken of as the village map
Khasra for abadi areas even indicate
the type of construction which may lie within a particular number or the use to which a piece of land was being put
The term urban area or rural area is used for much larger units than Khasra Nos
It would obviously be quite impossible to think of one particular number within an abadi area left out or 676 dropped deliberately without any rhyme or reason from the notifications mentioned above
No conceivable reason has been suggested for such an omission
Indeed there is not even an omission the effect of which may have been helpful to the appellant
It was only a case where the whole number is shown against one village only instead of being shown against two
The learned High Court Judge by basing his whole judg ment on a farfetched conjecture from supposed omission of No 203 in column 5 against Onkar Nagar adopted a con struction of the Notification if that is what the learned Judge was doing which was quite unintelligible with refer ence to the facts of the case or purposes of such notifica tions
The learned Judge would have been well advised to rest content with the obviously correct position that what the two Courts below had done was to arrive at a pure find ing of fact as to whether a particular Khasra number con taining the house in question was included within a Mauza to the whole of which the provisions of the Act had been plain ly extended
In view of all the facts of the case no other conclusion was reasonably possible
Consequently we allow this appeal by special leave with costs throughout set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the plaintiff s suit
As no counsel appeared to hear the Judgment today s costs are disallowed to both the parties
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Mauza Chowkri Mubarakabad was included within the limits of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 by a notification dated 7th January 1960
By a notification dated 12th April 1962 the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 was extended to the localities mentioned in the schedule to the notification dated 7th January 1960
The respondent landlord who purchased a house situated in Khasra No 203 Khewat No 1 situated at village Chowkri Mubarakabad Delhi Province within the Abadi of Onkar Nagar II filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant tenant of a room in the said house and for recovery of rent
The trial court and the first appellate court held that the juris diction of the civil court was barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
However on second appeal a single judge of the High Court disturbed the findings of fact and re versed the judgments of the courts below
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD i There cannot be any doubt that in the in stant case by deciding to set aside the concurrent findings of fact ignoring the law laid down by this Court and before that by the judicial committee of the Privy Council the High Court patently exceeded its jurisdiction under section 100 CPC without considering the objects of the notifications or discussing any principle of construction of documents which could indicate that a point of law had really arisen for decision
673 D F Deity Pattabhiramaswamy vs
section Hanyamayya  Ors AIR 1959 SC 57 Sri Sinha Ramanuja Jeer  Ors
vs Shri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer  Anr
19622 SCR 509 Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao 19632 SCR 208 Bhusawal Borough Municipality vs Amalgamated Electricity Co Ltd  Am 
19645 SCR 905 Secy
of State vs Rameswaram Devasthanam  Ors
 AIR 1934 PC 112 Anup Mahto vs Mita Dusadh  Ors
AIR 1934 PC 5 and Narayanrao Deshmukh vs Jaiwantrao Yadaorao Deshmnkh  Anr AIR 1933 PC 171 applied ii The well known principles of interpretation of documents are a firstly a document must be construed as a whole b secondly it has to be so construed as not to reduce what was meant or being done by it to a patent ab surdity and c thirdly if any entry of a column
appears to have been carelessly made so as not to give a correct indication Of what was otherwise clearly capable of being inferred from the objects and
rest of the contents of such a notification the slight error
 due obviously to inadver tance would not matter on an application of the principle Falsa Demonstrated non nocet 675 B C 671 iii Unless interpretation of a document involves the question of application of a principle of law mere infer ences from or the evidentiary value of a document generally raises only a question of fact
674 C Nedanuri Kameswaramma vs Sampati Subba Rao   explained
Meenakshi Mills Madurai vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Madras   referred to iv In the instant case it is evident that the proviso does not require the mention of anything more than the urban areas which is to be included or excluded from the limits of the Municipal Corporation
That area was sufficiently clearly indicated by entries in columns 2 and 3 meant for the Revenue Estate or Mauza and for the colony or the vil lage
The whole of Mauza Chowkri Mubarakabad and the whole of Onkar Nagar and Lekhupura were meant to be noti fied
The mere fact that the last column was not filled up in such a manner as to show precisely where each Khasra number lay did not affect the question whether the area to be included was sufficiently indicated or not
The provi sions of Section 12 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as wellas of Section 507a and b of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act refer only to areas and not to mere Khasra nos
which are convenient divisions for the purpose of indicating what lay within each area
674 H 675 A B GH