2015 (12) TMI 521 - SC - Indian Laws

Meaning, ambit and scope of the words legality and propriety under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority? - Held that - None of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity. Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions shall now be posted before the regular Benches for decision in light of the above.

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under various Rent Control Acts.
2. Interpretation of terms such as "legality and propriety," "regularity," "correctness," and "propriety."
3. Whether the High Court can reappreciate evidence in revisional jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:
The judgment addresses the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It clarifies that the revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broader than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but not as extensive as appellate jurisdiction. The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is not intended to serve as a second court of first appeal and should not be used to re-hear issues or re-appreciate evidence.

2. Interpretation of Terms:
The judgment delves into the meaning and scope of terms like "legality," "propriety," "correctness," and "regularity."
- Legality refers to strict adherence to law.
- Propriety means fitness, appropriateness, and suitability to the circumstances.
- Correctness is compounded of legality and propriety.
- Regularity relates to adherence to principles of natural justice and fair play.

The Court emphasizes that these terms must be understood within the context of the statute conferring revisional jurisdiction and should not be interpreted to allow the High Court to act as an appellate authority.

3. Reappreciation of Evidence:
The judgment clarifies that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from that of the lower courts. The Court can interfere only if the findings of the lower courts are perverse, based on no evidence, misreading of evidence, or ignoring material evidence, leading to gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction is to ensure that the decision is "according to law" and does not suffer from procedural illegality or irregularity.

Key Judgments and Observations:
- Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan: The High Court's revisional power is broader than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but does not make it a second court of first appeal.
- Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval: Revisional power is not as narrow as under Section 115 of the Code but not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal.
- Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar: The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act is a power of superintendence, not to interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
- Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander: The High Court can examine the correctness of findings of fact to ensure the decision is "according to law," but it is not a second court of first appeal.
- Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana: The High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in revisional jurisdiction; it can only examine the legality, regularity, and propriety of the order.
- Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta: The High Court can test the order on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law" and may enter into reappraisal of evidence only to check if the conclusion is wholly unreasonable or perverse.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the High Court's revisional power under the Rent Control Acts does not allow it to reappreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion from that of the lower courts. The High Court can interfere only if the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or lead to gross miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction is to ensure that the decision is "according to law" and does not suffer from procedural illegality or irregularity. The judgment approves the view in Rukmini Amma Saradamma and explains the scope of revisional jurisdiction as laid down in Ram Dass and other related cases.

← Previous Next →