LACHHMAN DAS versus SANTOKH SINGH

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 12-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LACHHMAN DAS 
v. 
SANTOKH SINGH 
MAY 12, 1995 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Hary011a Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973: Sections 
15(2) and 15(6rAppea/ and Revision-distinction and scope of-Whether 
the Revisiona/ Court has jurisdiction to reassess and re-appreciate evidence 
C 011d substitute its own conclusions by setting aside finding of the court below. 
The appellant-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the 
respondent-tenant from the premises on grounds of arrears of rent; tether-
ing cattle and putting dung cakes on walls of demised property diminish-
ing its value and utility; that tenant had ceased to reside in the tenanted 
D premises for more than a year and that the tenant had shifted his residence 
elsewhere. 
E 
F 
G 
The Rent Controlling Authority after framing the issues ordered the 
eviction of the tenant. 
On Appeal the appellate authority affirmed the order of eviction 
passed by the Rent Controller. Subsequently the Respondent-tenant 
preferred Revision Petition to the High Court which was allowed by setting 
aside the concurrent findings of the two courts below. Hence the appeal by 
the landlord. 
The appellant contended that the High Court committed a grave and 
serious error by interfering in a well reasoned judgment by the lower 
courts which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was argued by the 
appellant that the High Court had totally ignored the false defence set up 
by the Respondent- tenant. 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
Held : 1. The legislature had created two different jurisdictions - one 
under appeal and the other under Revision - and the two are different and 
distinct from each other in ambit and scope. The Appeal is a continuation 
H of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open 
484 
LACHHMAN DASS v. SANTOKH SINGH 
485 
for consideration by the appellate authority which has the power to review A 
the entire evidence but within the prescribed statutory limitations. While 
in the case of revision, the revisional authority has no power to reap-
preciate and reassess the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on 
it that power. A right to appeal carries with it the right of hearing on law 
as well as fact whereas the power to hear a revision is generally given to a B 
superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been 
. decided according to law. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court 
does not include the power to reverse concurrent findings without showing 
how those findings are erroneous. [489-D, 490-B] 
2. In the present case sub-section (6) of section 15 of Haryana Urban C 
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 confers Revisional power on the 
High Court for the pnrpose of satisfying itself with regard to the legality 
or propriety of an order or a proceeding. This power, however, is not so 
· wide as to encompass all the attributes and characteristics of an appeal. 
It cannot disturb concurrent finding of fact properly arrived at without 
recording as to how such findings are perverse or are based on no evidence. D 
Ignoring these principles would amount to equating revisional powers of 
the High Court with a regular appeal and thus rupture the fine distinction 
between an appeal and a revision. Unless the findings of the two courts 
below are absolutely perverse and erroneous, the High Court should not 
interfere. In the present case the High Court Judge disturbed the concur-
E 
rent findings for no good reasons resulting in miscarriage of justice. 
[490-C, E, G, 491-F] 
State of Kera/a v. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co., [1965] 1 SCR 601; 
Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, [1962] Suppl. 1 SCR 933 = 
AIR (1963) SC 698 and Neta Ram and Ors. v. Jivan Lal and Another, AIR F 
(1963) SC 499, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5752 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of the Punjab and G 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1076 of 1987. 
Sarwa Mittar and Sujit Bhattacharya for Mitter & Mitter Co. for the 
Appellant. 
K.G. Bhagat, Kamal Baid and Ms. Kusum Choudhary for the H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
B 
2. This appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been 
directed against the judgment dated 19th February, 1991, passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Har

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