9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act regarding eviction grounds and the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction.
Summary: 1. The appellant, a sub-tenant, faced eviction by the respondent tenant under Section 10 of the Act for various grounds, which were initially dismissed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. However, the High Court allowed the eviction application, leading to the appellant's appeal. The main contention was whether the High Court overstepped its revisional powers in overturning the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals. The debate centered on the broad jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, with the appellant arguing against excessive interference by the High Court based on the facts established by the subordinate tribunal. 2. The distinction between "appeal" and "revision" was deliberated upon, highlighting that appellate jurisdiction typically involves a rehearing on both law and fact, while revisional jurisdiction is akin to a supervisory power to ensure lower tribunals act within legal boundaries. The extent of revisional jurisdiction is determined by the conferring statute, aiming to maintain adherence to legal procedures and principles of justice. In this case, the language of the Tamil Nadu Act indicated a narrower revisional scope compared to appellate jurisdiction, emphasizing the High Court's role in supervising rather than reevaluating factual findings. 3. Section 25 of the Act grants the High Court the authority to review decisions of the appellate authority, emphasizing the need for satisfaction with the regularity and correctness of proceedings. Despite the broad language used, the term "revision" implies a restricted jurisdiction compared to "appeal," suggesting a supervisory function for the High Court. The judgment underscored that the High Court should not intervene in factual findings merely due to disagreement, aligning with the principle that revisional power is not equivalent to a second appeal court. 4. The debate over whether a landlord's bona fide requirement constitutes a mixed question of fact and law was raised, referencing previous cases. However, the judgment emphasized that the mere classification of a question as mixed does not automatically warrant revisional intervention. It was crucial to demonstrate unreasonable decision-making leading to a miscarriage of justice for the High Court to intervene. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was overturned, and the decision of the appellate court was reinstated, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional power under the Act.
|
