RAM DOSS versus K. THANGAVELU

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
RAM DOSS 
A 
v. 
K. THANGAVELU 
NOVEMBER 24, 1999 
[V. N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction-Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1960-Section 25-Tenant refused to recognise new owner as 
landlord-Defaulted in rent payments-Rent Court ordered eviction on the 
finding that there was landlord tenant relationship-Held: High Court cannot C 
treat Revision application as on appeal and reassess evidence-In revision, 
Court can look into records only to satisfy itself of the legality/correctness 
of the proceedings and the propriety of the judgment/order. 
The appellant, having purchased the property from the original owner, D 
became the owner of the premises which was already rented out to the 
respondent. However the respondent refused to recognise him as the landlord 
and failed to pay the rent. On an application by the appellant for eviction, the 
Rent Controller, held that there was a landlord-tenant relationship and in view 
of defaulted rent payment, ordered eviction. An appeal there from was 
dismissed. On Revision, High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller E 
holding that landlord tenant relationship was not established, against which 
this appeal is filed. In the appeal, it was contended that High Court erred in 
exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the T. N. Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act as appellate power and reassessing the evidence 
before the lower courts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The revisional power of the High Court under Section 25 of the 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act not being appellate power, 
F 
it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision 
petition. In this appeal the High Court proceeded to decide the revision as if G 
it was deciding an appeal. In the present case the Rent Control Authority and 
the Appellate Court on assessment of evidence concurrently recorded a 
finding of fact that there existed relationship of landlord-tenant between the 
parties. Both the Rent Control Authority and the Appellate Authority plac~ 
reliance on account books produced by the appellant to show that the H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A respondent tenant had been paying rent in respect of the said premises. The 
Rent Control Authority also took note of the fact that the respondent tenan' 
admitted in his evidence that the disputed premises do not belong to him and 
had been constructed on the land covered by survey No. S92~593. Mere non-
filling of lease deed, which could not be traced, would not necessarily lead to 
the conclusion that there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between the 
B parties at least when there were numerous documents on record to show that 
the appellant purchased this premises from R. The High Court was not 
justified in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the two courts 
below. (3-H; 4-A.C; G-H) 
C 
Dr. Sankarnarayanan v. Punjab National Bank, (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 
675, referred to. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4865 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 .11.1996 of High Court of Madras 
in C. R.P. No. 1644/91. 
TLV Iyer, Ms. N. Annapoorani, V. Krishnamurthy, S. Aravindh and T. 
Harish Kumar for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
V. N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein alleged himself to be the landlord 
of Door Nos. 24A and is situated in Ward No. II, Block No. III, Thanjavur 
Road, in the city of Tiruvarur. Originally the said premises was owned by 
Ramanathan Chettiar. Subsequently the aforesaid premises was purchased by 
the appellant on 7th March, 1980. The respondent is the tenant in the said 
premises from the time of predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. It appears 
F that the respondent did not recognise the appellant as the owner of the 
premises and rent was also not paid for the said premises. Under s~ch 
circumstances, the _appellant filed a petition before the Rent Control Authority 
for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of denial of title and also for 
willful default of payment of rent. Before the Rent Controller, the appellant 
filed various documents including the sale deed executed in his favour for 
G establishing that he is the owner of the said premises and the respondent is 
the tenant. Similarly evidence was also led by the respondent in support of 
his case. The Rent Controller, after assessing the evide

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