CHAUBE JAGDISH PRASAD AND ANOTHER versus GANGA PRASAD CHATURVEDI

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 05-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
733 
because it was under the impression that he had 
caused the only grievous injury that was found on the 
body of Mani Ram. The learned Advocate pointed 
out that there was no evidence to show that the grie-
vous injury had been caused by Narain. It seem~ to 
us that this contention is justified. There is however 
evidence to show that Narain merited the higher 
sentence. It was he who directed the attack agai,nst 
Mani Ram. He called the other members of the 
attacking party to desist from pursuing Moola Ram 
as Mani Ram was the real enemy and should be d~alt 
with. It is upon that, that the serious injuries on Mani 
Ram came to be inflicted. 
We, therefore, think Ghat 
the higher sentence imposed on the appellant Na.-ain 
was justified. 
No other question arises in this appeal. 
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. 
Appeal d·ismissed. · 
CHAUBE JAGDISH PRASAD AND ANOTHER 
v. 
GANGA PRASAD OHATUHVEDI 
(JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS and J.L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Revision-Revisional powers of High Court-]urisdict~on of 
subordinate court dependent on existence off act-Erroneous fi.nding 
as to such fact-Competence of High Court to interfere-Code of 
Civil Procedure (Act V of z908), s. II5. 
Landlord and Tenant-Accommodation-Agreed monthly rent-
New construction-Enhancement of rent-House Allotment Officer's 
findings-Power of the civil courts to interfere-U. P. Tem'Porary 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, z947 (U.P. 3 of z947), ss. 2(a)(j ), 
3A, 5(4), 6. 
In 1938 the respondent took on rent from' the appellant the 
accommodation in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 21-4a~. On 
January 28, 1950, the appellant made a:n application to the 
House Allofment Officer under s. 3A of the U.P. Temporary Con-
trol -of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for an increase in rent, on 
the allegation that according to the instruction of the tespon-
dent he had made a new construction in January, 1949. The 
Narain a,.11 
two Others 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab 
Sarkar]. 
Decemb1r 5. 
z958 
Chaub1 ]agdish 
Prasad 
v. 
Ganga Prasad 
Chaturvedi 
'734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
Officer considered that the accommodation was not a newly con-
structed one as the respondent had been a tenant from 1938, but 
he increased the rent to Rs. 40 per mensem on the basis of the 
building that was added by the new construction. The appellant 
thereupon instituted a suit ~nder s. 5(4) of the Act for the en-
hancement of "reasonable annual rent". The respondent's 
defence, inter alia, was that the new construction was under-
taken in order to put up another storey on the top of the old 
building, that so far as the accommodation in his possession was 
concerned there was no new construction of accommodation after 
June 30, 1946, and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. 
The trial court found that as a result of the new construction 
the accommodation had increased and was of the opinion that 
the portion of the building which had been newly replaced must 
be treated as a new accommodation and hence the court could 
determine its rent under s. 5(4). In revision, the High Court 
held that though t.he construction on the upper storey was a 
new construction, so far as the accommodation in the occupation 
of the respondent was concerned the construction could not be 
called a new one and therefore s. 3A of the Act was not applic-
able. Accordingly the revision petition was allowed and the. 
suit was dismissed. On appeal by special leave to the Supreme 
Court it was contended for the appellant that the House Allot-
ment Officer having decided in his favour the question of the 
date of construction which s. 3A of the Act authorised him to 
decide, the High Court could not in revision go into the correct-
ness of the decision; and, in any case, it was within the jurisdic~ 
tion of the trial court to decid~ the question of the date of con-
struction and in doing so it could decide rightly or wrongly, and 
as the matter was one of fact the High Court had no power to 
interfere under s. II5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Held: (1) that a wrong decision made by the House Allot-
ment Officer under s. 3A of the Act or an order made by him in 
excess of his powers under that section could be rectified by a 
suit under s. 5(4) of the Act ; and 
(2) that the maintainability of the suit brought under s. 3A 
of the Act depended on the determination of the jurisdictional 
fact i.e., 
date 
of 
construction 
of 
the 
accom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.