LexKALIDAS CHUNLLAL PATEL (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus SAVITABEN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G H [2016) 4 S.C.R. 840 KALIDAS CHUNlLAL PATEL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. SAVITABEN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.5674 of2007) JUNE29,2016 (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Rent Control and Eviction - Suit by landlord against tenant - Claiming money decree towards arrears of rent, notice charges and mesne profit - Also seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide re- quirement - During pendency of the suit, provisions of the Rent Control Act made applicable to the area where suit house was situ- ated - Trial court decreed the suit -Appellate court held that though the Act was applicable to the suit property, there was no need to remand the case to Rent Tribunal as the requirements under the Act were satisfied - On merit, the appellate court upheld the decree - In Revision, High Court remanded the case to appellate court with direction to start the case as one under the Act - On appeal, held: Findings of the appellate court are on proper appreciation of evi- dence and in conformity with the requirements of the Act - There is no ground to set aside such finding and the same was binding on the Revisional Court (High Court) - When the appellate court had already examined all the questions, there was no need for the High C-0urt to remand the case for deciding the same issues - It was an exercise in futility- Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House) Rates Control Act, 1947 - s.28. Jurisdiction - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of - Held: High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction not to i11te1fere with finding of fact recorded by appellate court, unless such finding is perverse or de hors any legal provision or is contrary to the plead- ings or evidence on record. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court committed an error in remanding the case to the appellate Court. When the first appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, records a finding of fact on a par- 840 KALIDAS CHUNILAL PATEL (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. SAVITABEN 841 &ORS. ticular issue, then such finding is usually binding on the High Court while hearing revision against such order. It is only when any finding of fact is found to be wholly perverse or de hors any provision of law or is recorded contrary to pleadings and evi- dence on record, interference in such finding may arise in appro- priate cases, but not otherwise. [Paras 26 and 29] [847-D-E; 848- B] 2. In the present case, all the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence. These findings are recorded in the light of requirement of provi- sions of the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House) Rates Control Act, 1947, after reversing the fintling of the Trial Court on the issue of applicability of the provisions of the Act. There is no infirmity in any of the findings so as to call for any interference in this appeal. In the light of findings, namely, that the defen- dants are defaulters in paying monthly rent and that the plaintiff's need for residence in the suit house is bona fide and that the defendant was not able to prove greater hardship if the eviction decree is passed against him, the decree for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit was rightly passed against the defendant in relation to suit house. Since these findings were rendered in con- formity with the requirements of the Act, there is no good ground to set aside these findings. [Para 28] [847-F-H; 848-A] 3. When the appellate Court had already examined all ques- tions arising in the case, as if the provisions of the Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging House) Rates Control Act, 1947 are appli- cable to the suit house and then recorded the findings in plaintiff's favour, there was no need for the High Court to remand the case again to the appellate Court for deciding the same issues. It was an exercise in futility and was not called for. Instead, the High Court should have examined the legality of the findings on mer- its with a view to find out as to whether the appellate Court was justified in recording the findings in plaintiff's favour or not. [Paras 24 and 25] [847-B-CJ Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan & Ors. (1960) 2 SCR 896; Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yogrqj Sin-ha (1962) 2 SCR 159 - referred to. A B c D E F G H 842 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS (11)60) 2 SCR 896 (11)62) 2 SCR 159 Case Law Reference referred to referred to (2016] 4 S.C.R. Para 30 Para 30
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.