Case: Patel Valmik Himatlal  Vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai

2. The case of the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint was that the tenant- defendants were not authorised to sublet, transfer or assign or permit anybody else to make use of the suit property or a part thereof without the consent of the landlord. It was asserted that the tenant-defendants closed down their business of timber and thereafter sublet the premises to Patel Transport Company without consent of the landlord. A public declaration had been made through a newspaper regarding the starting of the business of Patel Transport Company from the demised premises. The suit was contested and insofar as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the tenant-defendants maintained that there was no sub-letting in favour of Patel Transport Company and that in fact the tenant had entered into a partnership with Patel Transfer Company for running business in the suit premises. The trial Court after framing of issues and recording evidence came to the conclusion that sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant to Patel Transport Company was established and consequently decreed the suit of the landlord. The tenant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar. Vide order dated 16th April, 1981 the appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court confirmed. The tenant preferred a civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-landlord. By special leave, the appellant-landlord is before us.

Court's reasoning:
6. The powers under section 29(2) are revisional powers with which the High Court in clothed. It empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with the power to rehear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that a different view is possible on re-appreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.In the instant case we find that the High Court fell into an error in re- appraising the entire evidence and recording a finding on the basis of that re-appreciation without in any way pointing out any error of law or material irregularity as may have been committed by the trial Court or the first appellate court. In our opinion even the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was not correct. Certain facts were assumed by the High Court which were not on record and generalisation was made without any basis. In this connection a reference to paragraph 12 of th order of the High Court would be relevant.The question whether or not the premises had been sublet could not be decided on the basis whether a tenant generally is "expected to advertise the fact in this manner." The findings recorded by both the trial Court and the first appellate Court based on a critical appreciation of the terms of the agreement Exh. 78 and the evidence led by the parties on the record suffered from no error or material irregularity. Both the courts had rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant had in fact sublet the suit premises without consent of the landlord. There was no error committed by the courts below which required any correction at the hands of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The judgment of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained.