GANDHE VIJAY KUMAR versus MULJI @ MULCHAND

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 27-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 551 
GANDHE VIJAY KUMAR 
v. 
MULJI @ MULCHAND 
(Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2011) 
JULY27,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Jurisdiction : Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - On facts, 
concurrent findings of facts with regard to the bonafide requirement 
A 
B 
of the landlord by Rent Controller as well as by Appellate Authority 
C 
- Set aside by the High Court holding that the court can 
re-appreciate the evidence to test whether the findings of the Rent 
Controller are correct - On appeal, held: High Court misdirected 
itself and exceeded its jurisdiction - In revisional jurisdiction, the 
Court is expected to see only whether the findings are illegal or 
perverse - High Court should not have gone into the evidence as a 
D 
first appeal and enter a different finding, though another finding 
might also be possible - Merely because another view was possible 
in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, High Court could not upset 
the factual findings - Judgment of the High Court set aside and 
that of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, restored - Rent 
Control and eviction. 
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh 
(2014) 9 sec 78 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(20t4) 9 sec 78 
referred to 
Para I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1384 
of 2011. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2007 of the High 
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition 
G 
No. 4820 of 2006. 
H. S. Gumraja Rao, Sr. Adv. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Adv. for the 
Appellant. 
K. Maruti Rao, Adv.(for Ms. Anjani Aiyagari) for the 
Respondent. 
H 
551 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. The appellant before this Court is aggrieved by 
order passed by the High Court wherein concurrent findings on facts 
with regard to the bonafide requirements of the appellant have been 
upset holding that "the court can re-appreciate the evidence to test whether 
B 
the findings of the Rent Controller are correct". We are afraid, the High 
Court has misdirected itself and exceeded its jurisdiction. In revisional 
jurisdiction, the Court is expected to see only whether the findings are 
illegal or perverse in the sense that a reasonably informed person will 
not enter such a finding. For proper guidance, it would be appropriate to 
refer to a recent Constitution Bench judgment in Hindustan Petroleum 
C 
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh', at paragraphs-30, 31 and 43: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"30. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment 
that although there is some difference in the language employed 
by the three Rent Control Acts under consideration which provide 
for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the revisional power of 
the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broadly 
such power has the same scope save and except the power to 
invoke revisional jurisdiction suo mo tu unless so provided expressly. 
None of these statutes confer on revisional authority the power 
as wide as that of the appellate court or appellate authority despite 
such power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does 
not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as 
the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under 
these provisions to bring the orders ofthe trial court/Rent Controller 
and the appellate court/appellate authority for rehearing of the 
issues raised in the original proceedings. 
31. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in Sri Raja 
Lakshmi Dyeing Works that where both expressions "appeal" 
and "revision" are employed in a statute, obviously, the expression 
"revision" is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower 
jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression "appeal". The 
use of two expressions "appeal" and "revision" when used in one 
statute conferring appellate power and revisional power, we think, 
is not without purpose and significance. Ordinarily, appellate 
jurisdiction involves a rehearing while it is not so in the case of 
revisional jurisdiction when the same statute provides the remedy 
1(2014) 9sec1s 
GANDHE VIJAY KUMAR v. MULJI@ MULCHAND 
[KURIAN, J.] 
by way of an "appeal" and so also of a "revision". If that were so, 
the revisional power would become coextensive with that of the 
trial court or the subordinate tribunal which is never the case.

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