1999 JTR(SC) 509
1999 AIR(SCW) 4727 ; 1999 37 AllLR 816 ; 1999 108 ELT 14 ; 1999 9 JT 115 ; 2000 1 KLT 24 ; 2000 1 RentLR 46 ; 1999 5 SCC 645 ; 2000 KHC 6 ; 1999 9 Supreme 465
1999(9) Supreme 465
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Ubaiba -Appellant
versus
Damodaran -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2332 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17933 of 1997)
Decided on 15-4-1999
IMPORTANT POINT
The revisional Court u/s 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in the place of conclusion of the appellate authority.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.101, S.115, S.100
KERALA BUILDINGS LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT : S.20
(A) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 read with the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 101, 115, and 100, governs the adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in revisional matters. In this appeal, the statutory framework contemplates a revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Act, but the scope of that power is limited, and the High Court's role is not to act as a first or second appellate court by reappreciating evidence. The impugned order was challenged on the basis that the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, overstepped its bounds by substituting its own appreciation of the evidence for the appellate authority's findings regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The reference to Section 20 of the Kerala Act and the decisions of this Court serve to delineate the boundary between revisional and appellate powers, emphasizing that such wide jurisdiction does not permit the revisional court to reassess the propriety of evidence or upset factual determinations made by the appellate forum unless jurisdictional facts are involved.
(B) The key legal principles discussed include the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction, the limited scope of revisional power under the Rent Act, the non-applicability of reappreciation of evidence by the High Court, and the deference owed to the appellate authority's factual findings. The court underscored that even the word 'propriety' in Section 20 does not empower the revisional court to substitute its conclusion for that of the appellate authority, except in specific contexts involving jurisdictional facts.
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord filed an application for eviction and recovery of rent from the respondent tenant, alleging arrears of rent from 26-1-1990. The respondent denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and the Controller dismissed the application on the ground that no such relationship existed. The appellate authority, upon appeal, reappreciated the evidence and held that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, remitting the matter for determination of the rent quantum. The tenant challenged this order in revision before the High Court, which set aside the appellate authority's finding on the basis that the witnesses were unreliable, thereby affirming the Controller's original dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and upsetting the appellate authority's factual determination regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The appellate authority's finding was reinstated, and the High Court's impugned order was set aside as unsustainable in law.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, could reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, thereby upsetting the appellate authority's decision.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional court under the Rent Act possesses a wider jurisdiction than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is not equivalent to a second appellate court. The use of the word 'propriety' in Section 20 does not empower the revisional court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusion for that of the appellate authority, and such power is confined to cases involving jurisdictional facts.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's impugned order was set aside, and the order of the appellate authority was restored, directing the Controller to determine the quantum of rent.
(A) The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 read with the Civil Procedure Code, Sections 101, 115, and 100, governs the adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in revisional matters. In this appeal, the statutory framework contemplates a revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Act, but the scope of that power is limited, and the High Court's role is not to act as a first or second appellate court by reappreciating evidence. The impugned order was challenged on the basis that the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, overstepped its bounds by substituting its own appreciation of the evidence for the appellate authority's findings regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The reference to Section 20 of the Kerala Act and the decisions of this Court serve to delineate the boundary between revisional and appellate powers, emphasizing that such wide jurisdiction does not permit the revisional court to reassess the propriety of evidence or upset factual determinations made by the appellate forum unless jurisdictional facts are involved.
(B) The key legal principles discussed include the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction, the limited scope of revisional power under the Rent Act, the non-applicability of reappreciation of evidence by the High Court, and the deference owed to the appellate authority's factual findings. The court underscored that even the word 'propriety' in Section 20 does not empower the revisional court to substitute its conclusion for that of the appellate authority, except in specific contexts involving jurisdictional facts.
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord filed an application for eviction and recovery of rent from the respondent tenant, alleging arrears of rent from 26-1-1990. The respondent denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, and the Controller dismissed the application on the ground that no such relationship existed. The appellate authority, upon appeal, reappreciated the evidence and held that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, remitting the matter for determination of the rent quantum. The tenant challenged this order in revision before the High Court, which set aside the appellate authority's finding on the basis that the witnesses were unreliable, thereby affirming the Controller's original dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and upsetting the appellate authority's factual determination regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The appellate authority's finding was reinstated, and the High Court's impugned order was set aside as unsustainable in law.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, could reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, thereby upsetting the appellate authority's decision.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional court under the Rent Act possesses a wider jurisdiction than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is not equivalent to a second appellate court. The use of the word 'propriety' in Section 20 does not empower the revisional court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusion for that of the appellate authority, and such power is confined to cases involving jurisdictional facts.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's impugned order was set aside, and the order of the appellate authority was restored, directing the Controller to determine the quantum of rent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal the short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 could have interfered with the finding of the appellate authority by reappreciating the evidence on record. The appellant landlord filed the application for eviction and payment of rent alleging that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 26-1-1990. The respondent tenant took the stand that there does not exist any relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and therefore the application is not maintainable. The Controller on consideration of the evidence placed before him came to the conclusion that there does not exist any relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and accordingly dismissed the application without going into the question as to the alleged arrears of rent. The landlord carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority reappreciated the evidence on record and came to hold that there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. But as there was no finding of the Controller on the question of quantum of rent he remitted the matter of the Controller for redetermination on that score. The tenant carried the matter in revision. By the impugned judgment the High Court after reappreciating the entire evidence came to hold that the witnesses of the landlord are not reliable and therefore the appellate authority committed an error in relying upon their testimony and accordingly set aside the finding as to the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and affirmed the finding of the Controller on that score and allowed the revision partition and hence the present appeal.
3. Mr. K. Sukumaran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under the Act in question may be, but it cannot have jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority and therefore the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in this case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana1 whereunder the selfsame provision of the Kerala Act was under consideration. This Court after noticing the word "propriety" used in Section 20 came to the conclusion that the approach of the High Court was totally wrong and even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. The Court also further observed "even by the presence of the word propriety it cannot mean that there could be any reappreciation of evidence". The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the aforesaid decision will have no application to the case in hand where the dispute involved relates to a jurisdictional fact and according to the learned counsel where the dispute is in relation to a jurisdictional fact there should not be any fetter on the power of the revisional court even to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion. On being asked to support the aforesaid proposition no authority could be placed though on first principle learned counsel for the respondent argued as aforesaid. Having examined the rival submission and having gone through the decision of this Court referred to earlier we are of the considered opinion that though the revisional power under the Rent Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the use of the expression "propriety" in Section 20, the revisional court therefore will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court in the light of the aforesaid ratio of this Court it is crystal clear that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. In the circumstances, the impugned revisional order of the High Court is wholly unsustainable and we set aside the same and the order of the appellate authority is affirmed. The Controller would now determine the quantum of rent, as directed by the appellate authority. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
*************