PATEL VALMIK HIMATLAL AND ORS. versus PATEL MOHANLAL MULJIBHAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 26-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PATEL VALMIK HIMATLAL AND ORS. 
v. 
PATEL MOHANLAL MULJIBHAI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
AUGUST 26, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Rent and Eviction : 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
S. 29(2)-Revisional jwisdiction of High Cowt-Scope of-Concwrent 
finding of Cozl!1s below that tenant of non- residential premises sublet it 
without pemzission of landlord-He/cl, mere fact that a different view is 
possible 011 re- appreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of 
revisional jwisdiction-High Cowt fell into en-or in re- appraising the entire 
D evidence and recording a finding without any way pointing any e1mr of law 
or mate1ial iTTegulmity, if any, committed by either of the coults below-Even 
appreciation of evidence by High Cowt was not cmrect-Both the Cowts 
below had Tightly come to the conclusion that tenant had in fact sublet suit 
premises and paned with possession thereof without conse1Zt of landlord. 
E 
F 
Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kad1i and Others, 
[1987] 3 sec 538, relied on. 
CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 7153 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.94 of the Gujarat High 
Court in C.R.A. No. 984 of 1981. 
Ranjit Kumar and H.A. Raichura for the Appdlants. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Appellant-landlord filed a suit for recovery of a shop situate at Lati 
Bazar in city of Bhavnagar which had been let out to the tenant-respondent 
on a monthly rent of Rs. 111 for the specific purpose of running timber 
business. Various grounds were taken in the suit for eviction but for the 
H purposes of the present appeal by special leave we are concerned only with 
126 
P.V. HIMATLAL v. P.M. MUUIBHAI 
127 
the ground of sub- letting. 
The case of the appellant-plaintiff in the plaint was that the tenant-
defendants were not authorised to sublet, transfer or assign or permit 
anybody else to make use of the suit property or a part thereof without the 
consent of the landlord. It was asserted that the tenant-defendants closed 
down their business of timber and thereafter sublet the premises to Patel 
Transport Company without consent of the landlord. A public declaration 
had been made through a newspaper regarding the staring of the business 
of PateJ Transport Company from the demised premises. The suit was 
contested and insofar as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the 
tenant-defendants maintained that there was no sub-letting in favour of 
Patel Transport Company and that in fact the tel).ant had entered into a 
partnership with Patel transport Company for running business in the suit 
premises. The trial court after framing of issues and recording evidence 
came to the conclusion that sub-letting of the suit premises by the tenant 
A 
B 
c 
to Patel Transport Company was established and consequently decreed the D 
suit of the landlord. The tenant filed an appeal which was heard by the 
learned Extra Assistant Judge, Bhavnagar. Vide order dated 16th April, 
1981 the appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court 
confirmed. The tenant preferred a civil revision application under section 
29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. 
The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction set aside the E 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appel-
late court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant- landlord. By special 
leave, the appellant-landlord is before us. 
We have perused the record and heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned 
F 
counsel appearing for the appellant. The respondent despite service has 
chosen to remain absent. 
Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Act as applicable to Gujarat 
amendment reads as follows :-
"29(2). No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal 
under sub-section (1) but the High Court may, for the purpose of 
satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to 
law, call for the case in which snch decision was taken and pass 
G 
such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit." 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration 
before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri 
and Others, [1987] 3 sec 538 and after referring to a Catena of authorities, 
Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the 
revisional jurisdicti

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