Case: Lachhman Dass Vs. Santokh Singh

reassess and reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on in that power. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by a decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Company, A.I.R. 1965 SC 1585 . 8. This Court in the case of Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, A.I.R. 1963 SC 698 had an occasion to consider the question of distinction between an appeal and a revision and Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed at p. 939 of the report as follows :- "The distinction between an appeal and revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal limits the rehearing in some way as, we find, has been done in second appeals arising under the Code of Civil Procedure. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law." 9. In the case of State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Company (supra) this Court expressed the view that when the Legislature confers a right to appeal in one case and discretionary remedy of revision in another, it may be deemed to have created two jurisdictions different in scope and content. Again in the case of Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, A.I.R. 1963 SC 499, Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does no include the power to reverse concurrent findings, without showing how those findings are erroneous. 10. In the present case sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act confers revisional power on the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself with regard to the legality or propriety of an order or proceedings taken under the Act and empowers the High Court to pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. The High Court will be justified in interfering with the order in revision if it finds that the order of the appellate authority suffers from a material impropriety or illegality. From the use of the expression "Legality or propriety of such order or proceedings" occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, it appears that no doubt the revisional power of the High Court under the Act is wider than the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is confined to jurisdiction, but it is also not so wide as to embrace within its fold all the attributes and characteristics of an appeal and disturb a concurrent finding of fact properly arrived at without recording a finding that such conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence or based on a superficial and perfunctory approach. If the High Court proceeds to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact ignoring the aforementioned well-recognised principles, it would amount to equating the revisional powers of the High Court as powers of a regular appeal frustrating the fine distinction between an appeal and a revision. That being so unless the High Court comes to the conclusion that the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below are wholly perverse and erroneous which manifestly appear to be unjust there should be no interference. In the present case the two courts below have thoroughly examined and appreciated the parties evidence and have recorded a definite finding, entirely based on the evidence on record that the respondent-tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises since after September 1981 and had, in fact, along with his wife and family started living in House No. 351, Ward No. 7, Karnal, having been acquired by him in the name of his wife.11. It may be noticed that the learned Single Judge has himself stated in the impugned judgment that it is not a matter of dispute that both the accommodation i.e. the demised premises and the house acquired by the tenant- respondent, in the name of his wife, have almost the same capacity yet the learned Single Judge took the view that the house acquired by the respondent was not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. If both the houses are almost of the same capacity it is difficult to accept the finding that the house acquired by the respondent is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the respondents family consists of about 14 persons is neither here nor there, as admittedly, all those 14 persons are not living at Karnal with the respondent and, particularly, in the demised premises or in the house acquired by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has himself further observed in the impugned judgment that "though it is also in evidence that some of the sons are either posted or working outside Karnal yet it is patent that they keep on visiting the petitioner". Thus, the learned Single Judge included the occasional visitors of the respondent also to be the members of the family which by no stretch of imagination could be accepted to be a sound reasoning, to set aside the concurrent findings of fact. It is also not the case of respondent-tenant that 14 persons of his family are living with him in the house. On the contrary from the evidence it is clear that at the most the respondents family consists of six members including his wife who have been living in the demised premises and all of them have shifted in the house acquired by the respondent in the name of his wife. This fact is sufficiently established from the oral and documentary evidence on record. But surprisingly enough the learned Single Judge ignored this part of the evidence and disturbed concurrent findings for no good reasons, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the present case as discussed earlier the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction against the respondent on the ground mentioned under Section 13 of the Act against which the respondent preferred an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act and the appellate authority affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Here it may be noted that the Act does not provide a second appeal against the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 15. The Act, however, under sub-section (6) of Section 15 makes a provision for revision to the High Court against any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. Thus, the Legislature has provided for a single appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and no further appeal has been provided under the Act. The Legislature has, however, made a provision for discretionary remedy of revision which is indicative of the fact that the Legislature has created two jurisdictions different from each other in scope and content in the form of an appeal and revision. That being so the two jurisdictions - one under an appeal and the other under revision - cannot be said to be one and the same but distinct and different in the ambit and scope. Precisely stated, an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on in thatIn the present case sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act confers revisional power on the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself with regard to the legality or propriety of an order or proceedings taken under the Act and empowers the High Court to pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. The High Court will be justified in interfering with the order in revision if it finds that the order of the appellate authority suffers from a material impropriety or illegality. From the use of the expression "Legality or propriety of such order or proceedings" occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, it appears that no doubt the revisional power of the High Court under the Act is wider than the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is confined to jurisdiction, but it is also not so wide as to embrace within its fold all the attributes and characteristics of an appeal and disturb a concurrent finding of fact properly arrived at without recording a finding that such conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence or based on a superficial and perfunctory approach. If the High Court proceeds to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact ignoring the aforementioned well-recognised principles, it would amount to equating the revisional powers of the High Court as powers of a regular appeal frustrating the fine distinction between an appeal and a revision. That being so unless the High Court comes to the conclusion that the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below are wholly perverse and erroneous which manifestly appear to be unjust there should be no interference. In the present case the two courts below have thoroughly examined and appreciated the parties evidence and have recorded a definite finding, entirely based on the evidence on record that the respondent-tenant has ceased to occupy the demised premises since after September 1981 and had, in fact, along with his wife and family started living in House No. 351, Ward No. 7, Karnal, having been acquired by him in the name of his wife.11. It may be noticed that the learned Single Judge has himself stated in the impugned judgment that it is not a matter of dispute that both the accommodation i.e. the demised premises and the house acquired by the tenant- respondent, in the name of his wife, have almost the same capacity yet the learned Single Judge took the view that the house acquired by the respondent was not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. If both the houses are almost of the same capacity it is difficult to accept the finding that the house acquired by the respondent is not reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the respondents family consists of about 14 persons is neither here nor there, as admittedly, all those 14 persons are not living at Karnal with the respondent and, particularly, in the demised premises or in the house acquired by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has himself further observed in the impugned judgment that "though it is also in evidence that some of the sons are either posted or working outside Karnal yet it is patent that they keep on visiting the petitioner". Thus, the learned Single Judge included the occasional visitors of the respondent also to be the members of the family which by no stretch of imagination could be accepted to be a sound reasoning, to set aside the concurrent findings of fact. It is also not the case of respondent-tenant that 14 persons of his family are living with him in the house. On the contrary from the evidence it is clear that at the most the respondents family consists of six members including his wife who have been living in the demised premises and all of them have shifted in the house acquired by the respondent in the name of his wife. This fact is sufficiently established from the oral and documentary evidence on record. But surprisingly enough the learned Single Judge ignored this part of the evidence and disturbed concurrent findings for no good reasons, resulting in miscarriage of justice.