9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court under its Revisional Jurisdiction was justified in reversing the findings of the appellate court based on evidence on record. 2. Whether the High Court could have appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and reversed the finding of the appellate court based on the report of such Commissioner. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court The primary contention was whether the High Court, under its limited revisional jurisdiction, could reverse the appellate court's findings based on evidence. The appellant argued that the High Court's power of revision does not extend to reappraising evidence or disturbing findings of fact recorded by the appellate court. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, allows it to examine the legality or propriety of any order, which is broader than Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code but does not permit reappraisal of evidence. The court cited precedents such as Lachmand Dass vs. Santokh Singh and Shiv Lal vs. Sat Parkash, emphasizing that the revisional jurisdiction does not encompass disturbing findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court can only interfere if there is material impropriety or illegality in the appellate court's order. Issue 2: Appointment of a Local Commissioner The second issue was whether the High Court could appoint a local Commissioner during its revisional jurisdiction. The appellant objected to the appointment of the local Commissioner and the subsequent report, arguing that it was beyond the High Court's jurisdiction and that the report should be ignored. The court noted that the law allows consideration of subsequent events relevant to the issues or relief claimed. The High Court permitted the appointment of a local Commissioner due to the significant passage of time (18 years) since the filing of the eviction petition. The local Commissioner's report detailed the poor condition of the shop, including a hole in the roof and significant cracks in the walls, which supported the claim that the shop was unfit for human habitation. The court held that considering such subsequent evidence was within the High Court's jurisdiction and did not constitute an error. Conclusion: 1. The High Court, by allowing fresh evidence and reversing the appellate court's findings, acted within its jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. It did not exceed its revisional jurisdiction. 2. The High Court committed no jurisdictional error in permitting the local Commissioner's report to be placed on record and relying on it to determine the shop's condition. The court emphasized that subsequent events relevant to the issues should be considered to render justice. Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs. The appellant was granted time to vacate the premises by or before 31st December 2001, subject to filing the usual undertaking within four weeks.
|
