LexRUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMA versus KALL YANI SULOCHANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMA A v. KALL YANI SULOCHANA AND ORS. DECEMBER 16, 1992 [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN AND DR. AS. ANAND, JJ.] B Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: Section 2o-Revisional Jurisdiction-Scope of-Wliether revisional court has jurisdic- tion to reappreciate evidence-Second revision to the High Court under Sec- tion 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Permissibility of. C Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Section 115-'-Revisionallurisdiction-Ex- ercise of-Whether High Court could reappreciate evidence. The appellant-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the first respondent-tenant froin the schedule premises, on the ground that the D first respondent had committed default of rent and that she was entitled to recover possession of the shed for demolition. The Rent Controller directed eviction on the ground . of arrears of rent, but disallowed the claim for recovery of building for ·demolition. . On appeal by the landlady, the Appellate Court reversed the finding E regarding bona fide need anci confirmed the eviction order on this ground also. Thereupon, the first respondent filed a revision under.Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 before the District Court, who dismissed the same. The first respondent preferred a further revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code before the F High Court, which set aside the finding of the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court and remitted the matter to the trial court. Thereafter, the Rent Controller dismiss~ the petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed an appeal to the District Court, which directed eviction of the firiit respondent on the ground of bona fide G need under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the first respondent preferred a revision. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of eviction, holding that the landlady was not snttessful in proving her case of bone filll need. Hence the appeal, by special leave, by the landlady. H 579 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court had misconceived the scope of revisional jurisdiction, and tha·t not- withstanding the fact that Section 20 of the Act conferring revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was widely worded, such a jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction. B On behalf of the first respondent it was urged that the revisional jurisdiction conferred tinder Section 20 of the Act was wide in scope in comparison to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and the revisional court could consider the propriety of the order under revision. C Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. Unlike the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, power is given to the revisional authority to call for and examine the records relating to any order for the purposes D of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order. E Even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating th~ entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional · jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word 'propriety' it cannot mean that there could be re-appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; o~ the contrary, by confining itself to ·p legality, regularity and propriety of the order challenged before it. The High Court was not right in its view that under Section 20 of the Act though re-appreciation of the evidence as such was not callfd for, the pleadings and evidence have to be examined to satisfy the legality, regularity .of the order of the lower authorities. [584-G,H; 587-A-OJ -a Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, A.l.R. 1987 S.C. 203, inap- plicable. H. V. Mathai v. The Subordinate Judge, Kottayam and Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.C. 194; Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla, (1991] 1 H S.C.C. 422 and Raman and Raman LU!. v. The State of Madras and Anr., ,- . RUKMINI A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.