LexLEKH RAJ versus MUNI LAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c LEKH RAJ v. MUNI LAL AND ORS. FEBRUARY 6, 2001 [A.P. MISRA AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section 15(5). Revisiona/ Jurisdiction-Subsequent events-Landlord filed eviction petition against tenant on the grounds, inter alia, that the building was in a dilapidqted condition and hence unfit for human habitation-Trial court allowed the petition-But Appellate Court held that the condition of building was neither unsafe nor unfit for human habitation-revision petition filed- D during pendency of revision, after 18 years, landlord filed application for appointment of local Commissioner-High Court allowed the application and relying on the report of local Commissioner held that the building was unfit for human habitation-Correctness of-Held: A court can take into consideration subsequent facts, event or happening which are relevant- E Hence, High Court committed no error in the appointment of local Commissioner and considering and relying on his report. "Legality and propriety" Scope and ambit of-Held; High Court under its supervis01y revisional jurisdiction can examine the "legality" or "propriety" of an order-However, it should be between limited revisional F jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and i:vider appellate jurisdiction-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115. Words and Phrases: "legality and propriety "-Meani11g of-Jn the context of Section 15(5) G of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant- tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the grounds, inter alia, that the building was in a dilapidated condition not fit for human habitation. The trial court decreed the petition. The appellate H court held that the building was neither unfit nor unsafe for human habitation 864 LEKH RA.Iv. MUNI LAL 865 and set aside the order of the trial court. A Being aggrieved the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision petition, after 18 years the respondent filed an application for appointment of a local Commissioner which was allowed. The High Court, based on the report of the local Commissioner, held that the building '!as unfit for human habitation and allowed the B respondent's eviction petition. Hence this appeal. The following questions arose before this Court:- (1) Whether the High Court under its Revisional Jurisdiction which C limits it to examine the "legality and propriety" of the appellate court's order was justified in reversing its finding based on evidence on record? (2) Whether the High Court could tiave appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revision al jurisdiction and to reverse the finding of the appellate court based on the report of such Commissioner? D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The language of Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 clearly spells out that the High Court's jurisdiction is E neither restricted to what is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 nor is it as large as power of the appellate Authority. The High Court under its supervisory revisional jurisdiction could examine the "legality" or "propriety" of any order. This "legality" or "propriety" widens the scope of the High Court, which is larger than the power of revision under the Civil Procedure Code. But in no case it confers power to set aside the findings of F fact by reappraisal of evidence. In doing so it would be trespassing its jurisdiction. However, good reason for drawing a different conclusion, it cannot be construed to be within jurisdiction. Thus courts have to carve out a field for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5), emanating froin the words "legality" and "propriety" which should be between limited G revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and wider appellate jurisdiction. Lachman Dass v. Santokh Singh, 119951 4 SCC 202; Shiv Lal v. Sat Parkash, 119931 Supp. 2 SCC 345 and Mohini Sura) Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mital, 1198611 sec 687, relied on. H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (200 I] I S.C.R. A 2. In case subsequent event or fad having bearing on the issues or relief in a suit or proceeding, to which any party seeks to bring on record, the court should not shut its door. All laws and procedures including functioning o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.