DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 10-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DEV KUMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
v. 
SMT. SWARAN LATA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 10, 1995 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Rest1iction Act, 1949 : 
A 
B 
Section 15(5)-Revision-Power of High Cowt-Scope of-Power held 
wider than the power under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code-But it 
C 
cannot be equated with Appellate Jwisdiction-Examination of legality and 
prop1iety of conclusion anived by Appellate Autho1ity-Held : High Cowt 
cannot inte1fere with unless there is pe1versity in appreciation of evidence by 
Appellate Auth01ity. 
Section 13(2)(ii)(a)-Sub-letting-Eviction f01~Appointment of Com-
D 
missione1~ommissio11er acting at the behest of landlady- Commissioner's 
evidence held tainted-No other evidence to support sub-letting-Held 
landlady failed to establish her case of sub-letting-Conclusion of High Co wt 
based on Commissioner's rep01t held not justified. 
The respondent-landlady filed an eviction suit under section 13(2)(i) 
and (ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the 
ground, inter alia that the appellant-tenant had sublet the premises to 
respondents 2 to 4 who were carrying on business in the name and style 
of M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand. The tenant contested the case on the 
ground that alongwith his own business he was carrying on the business 
as commission agent of respondents 2 to 4. The Rent Controller appointed 
E 
F 
a Local Commissioner whose report indicated that on a particular day 
when he went to the disputed premises and purchased a piece of cloth for 
which a bill was given in the name of M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand, Moti 
Bazar. However, the disputed property is not in Moti Bazar but in Pratap G 
Bazar. On second occasion when the Commissioner went to the shop a bill 
book was produced in the name of M/s. Ram Saran Bhola Nath having the 
rubber stamp with the words "Sole Selling Agent Dev Kumar". In his 
evidence also the Commissioner stated that he took a sum of Rs. 77 from 
Gain Chand, Power of Attorney of the landlady, for purchase of the piece 
of cloth from the disputed premises and after purchasing the same he H 
89 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199S] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
handed it over to Gian Chand. Accepting the report and evidence of the 
Local Commissioner, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the 
tenant had sublet the premises to respondents 2 to 4 who were carrying on 
the business in the premises in question and consequently passed an 
eviction order. The first appellate Court set aside the eviction order 
B 
c 
holding that (i) the Commissioner's report indicated that the tenant was 
carrying on his business in the disputed premises and had not parted with 
the possession of the same; (ii) no evidence was produced by land-lady to 
show that respondents 2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the disputed 
premises for valuable consideration. In revision, filed by the land-lady 
under section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court reversed the findings of the 
Appellate Authority and relying upon the evidence of the Commissioner 
held that respondents 2 to 4 were in exclusive possession of the demised 
premises and that the tenant had parted with possession in their favour. 
In tenant's appeal to this Court on the question whether the High 
D 
Court was justified in re-appreciating the evidence and interfering with the 
conclusion of the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revision jurisdiction 
and whether the landlady has established her case of sub-letting by the 
tenant: 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the 
E 
High Court, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. The respondent-landlady has utterly failed to establish the 
plea of subletting and the High Court erred in law in formulating its own 
conclusion and reversing the finding of the Appellate Authority. [98-A·B] 
2. The jurisdiction of the high Court under sub-section (5) of section 
15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 entitles the Court 
to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate 
Authority and is much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under section 
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to 
G the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and 
cannot be equated with an Appellate Jurisdiction. This being the position, 
unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the 
Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Autho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.