LexK,M. ABDUL RAZZAK versus DAMODHARAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H K,M. ABDUL RAZZAK v. DAMODHARAN MAY2, 2000 [V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960: S. 14( 1 )( b )-LJ:mdlord' s application for eviction claiming building to be dilapidated and required for reconstruction-Rent Controller and appellate authority holding that building was not in dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction-LJ:mdlord filing revision before High Court- Meanwhile legal position with regard to requirement uls. 14(1 )(b) changed by virtue of Supreme Court decision-High Court re-assessing evidence and;hold- ing that building was dilapidated, landlord required it bona fide for reconstruc- tion and landlord had adequate funds for the purpose-Held, if there was a change in position of law, High Court should have sent the matter back to appellate authority-It is not permissible for High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as a1i appellate court to reappraise and reassess evidence afresh and to come to a different finding contrary to that reconkd by court below-High Court while allowing the revision transgressed its jurisdic- tion-Matter sent back to appellate authority to decide the appeal in accord- ance with law. *Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, [1996] 6 SCC 475, relied on. P. ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd., [1991) 1 sec 310, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 602 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.99 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 1672 of 1995. S. Sivasubramanian, S. Aravindh, Senthil Jagadees and Rakesh K. Shanna for the Appellant. 914 - )l K.M. ABDUL RAZZAK v. DAMODHARAN 915 Ms. V Mohana and Ashok Agrawal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Appellant herein, is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller at Madurai for eviction of the appellant-tenant under Sfction 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter Ieferred to as 'the Act')~ The case of the landlord was that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction. The landlord also stated that he has sufficient funds to raise the new construction. The Rent Controller, before. whom the aforesaid petition was filed, appointed anAdvocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report in respect thereof. The Commis- sioner inspected the premises with the help of a Chartered Engineer and submitted his report. In his report the Commissioner found that the premises was old one, but was not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction. Parties also led evidence in respect thereof. The Rent Controller after considering the entire material on record recorded a finding that building is not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction and, therefore, the landlord was not in a bona fide need of the premises. The Rent Controller recorded a further finding that the financial condition of the appellant is not such as he could raise construction after demolition. With these findings the petition filed by the landlord was dis- missed. The landlord thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller as regards the condition of the premises. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The landlord thereafter preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court. The High Court, after reassessing the. evidence was of the view that the building is in a dilapidated condition, the appellant has adequate funds to raise the construc- tion, and further the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises. After recording the said findings the High Court set aside the judgment of the court below and allowed the revision. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power could not have reassessed or re-evaluated the evidence on record afresh and come to a different finding and thus, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. This has been disputed A B c D E F G H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R. A by learned coun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.