2021 (2) TMI 485 - HC - Indian Laws

Review application - arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist from house - Service of notice - HELD THAT - It finds that learned trial court while deciding the issue no.1 with regard to whether ₹ 8,000/- had been agreed upon as rent by the landlord and the tenant, had considered in detail, the situation of the building, the covered area of the tenanted premises and also the photographs of the building and its situation as produced before the trial court. The rent reciepts were also produced in original. The trial court emphasized also the fact that for the same premises the tenant had taken an independent electricity connection for which he was paying ₹ 6,000/- to ₹ 7,000/- per month as electricity charges to the distribution company. The learned trial court has observed after referring to the oral statement of the landlord as also the tenant and his witness, that it was quite improbable that the landlord would have agreed to accept merely ₹ 3,000/- as electricity charges for the tenanted premises whereas in ordinary course, ₹ 6,000/- to ₹ 7,000/- was liable to be paid as electricity charges by the tenant. The trial court has given finding of fact on the basis of actual photographs of the building produced before him that there was no space on the ground floor near the stair case and toilet for construction of cabin as alleged to have been promised to the tenant by the landlord and for agreement by the tenant to pay ₹ 2,000/- as rent for a cabin to be so constructed. Service of notice - HELD THAT - The relevant extract of which has been filed at page-86 to page 87 of the application for interim relief. It finds that there is no contention raised by the tenant before the learned trial court that notice was not served as it was sent on a wrong address; rather the tenant had stated that the notice was not served upon him because he may have been out of station as he worked as a Recovery Agent also for the Bank of Baroda and had to undertake certain recoveries for the Bank in different towns as well. Moreover, in the plaint also, as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the same address of the tenant has been mentioned as was mentioned in the legal notice, and it is improbable that summons were served of the plaint on the defendant on the same address to which he responded by filing a written statement; while at the same time the legal notice dated 11.08.2016 was not served. The question regarding the scope of a Revision before the High Courts in various Rent Control legislations in different States was considered by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS DILBAHAR SINGH 2015 (12) TMI 521 - SUPREME COURT ; the Supreme Court in the said judgment has referred to several state Acts but has concluded that none of the Acts conferred on Revisional Authority the power as wide as that of the Appeal despite such statutory revisional power being wider than that provided in section 115 of the C.P.C. , the provision in a revision does not permit the High Court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction under the cloak of an appeal in disguise. The Revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the Trial court. The decision emphasises that the examination of findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is according to law . The High Court has only to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity, or propriety of the decision or that it is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law - Whether or not a finding of fact recorded by a subordinate court is according to law is required to be seen on the touchstone, whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence, or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether, or suffers from perversity, or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The findings returned by the learned trial court with regard to the agreed rate of Rent or with regard to service of notice upon the defendant, do not suffer from any perversity for this Court to show any interference in revisional jurisdiction - Review/recall application is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispute over the agreed rate of rent.
2. Default in payment of rent.
3. Entitlement to reliefs sought by the landlord, including eviction and arrears of rent.
4. Service of legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispute over the Agreed Rate of Rent:
The revisionist claimed that the rent was ?3,000 per month for four rooms on the first floor, whereas the landlord asserted it was ?8,000 per month. The trial court considered the building's location, the covered area, and the improbability of renting such a commercial space for only ?3,000. The court found the landlord's claim credible, supported by rent receipts and the improbability of such low rent given the high electricity costs borne by the tenant. The revisionist's argument, supported by a friend's testimony, was deemed an afterthought and unsupported by initial pleadings.

2. Default in Payment of Rent:
The landlord provided evidence of non-payment of rent from December 2015 to August 2016 and a dishonored cheque for December 2015. The trial court found that the revisionist had defaulted on rent payments and that the landlord's claim of ?8,000 per month was credible. The revisionist's claim of withholding rent due to unfulfilled repair agreements was unsupported by sufficient evidence.

3. Entitlement to Reliefs Sought by the Landlord:
The trial court directed the revisionist to pay arrears of ?8,000 per month from December 2015 and damages for continued occupation. The revisionist was ordered to vacate the premises within two months. The court emphasized that the landlord's claim was substantiated by documentary evidence, including rent receipts and legal notices.

4. Service of Legal Notice:
The revisionist challenged the service of the legal notice, claiming it was sent to an incorrect address. The landlord provided the original speed post receipt and tracking report showing delivery. The trial court rejected the revisionist's claim, noting the improbability of the notice not being served when the summons for the suit was received at the same address. The court found the landlord's evidence credible and the revisionist's denial unconvincing.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the limited scope of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The court found no perversity or infirmity in the trial court's judgment, which was based on substantial evidence and proper legal procedures. The revision and review applications were dismissed, and the revisionist was ordered to vacate the premises and pay arrears and damages as determined by the trial court.