SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE versus GANPATRAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 27-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE 
v. 
GANPATRAO AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIKAND SHIVARAJV. PATIL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 226 & 227-Findings of inferior 
Tribunal-Interference by High Court-Justification of-Held, the jurisdiction 
C of High Court is supervisory and not appellate-However, if the High Court 
comes to a conclusion that (i) the Tribunal has committed manifest error by 
mis-construing certain documents; or (ii) that on the materials it is not 
possible for a reasonable man to come to a conclusion arrived at by the 
inferior Tribunal; or (iii) the inferior Tribunal has ignored to take into 
consideration certain relevant materials; or (iv) has taken into consideration 
D certain materials which are not admissible, then it would be fully justified 
in interfering with the findings of the inferior Tribunal. 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 
E 1949. 
S. 13(3) (ii), (iii) and (iv)-Landlord-Application for permission to -
determine tenancy on the ground of habitual default in payment of rent, 
subletting and for bona fide personal need-Allowed by Rent Controller-On 
appeal, Appellate Authority by misreading and misconstruing certain 
F documents, set aside the Order of Rent Controller-Writ petition-Single 
Judge of High Court by re-appreciating the evidence, setting aside the Order 
of Appellate Authority-Validity of-Held, High Court fully justified in 
interfering with and correcting the error in the Order of Appellate Authority-
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 226 and 227. 
G 
H 
S.13(3) (iii)-Subletting-Proof of-Held, the two ingredients parting 
with the possession and some consideration therefore have to be established 
Words & Phrases 
"habitually" Meaning and connotation of in the context of S. 13 (3) (ii) 
448 
.... 
-
... 
.. 
SHAMA PRASHANT RAJE v. GANPATRAO 
449 
of the Central Provinces and Berar Subletting of Houses and Rent Control A 
Order, 1949. 
, Respondent landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller 
u/s. 13 (3) (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of 
Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for determining the tenancy of the B 
appellant inter a/ia on the grounds of habitual default in payment of rent, 
subletting and for bonafide personal need. Accepting the said grounds, the 
Controller granted permission for determining the tenancy. However, on 
appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the Controller. 
Aggrieved, respondent landlord filed a writ petition in the High Court. Single 
Judge of the High Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in setting C 
aside the findings of the Rent Controller and affirmed the order of the Rent 
Controller. Appellant-tenant unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Division 
Bench of the Hf~h Court. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellant-tenant it was contended that the High Court D 
exceeded its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in 
interfering with the fmdings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority under 
the Rent Control Order by re-appreciating the evidence, and therefore, the 
judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside; that the conclusion of 
the High Court that the plea of sub-letting has been established was contrary 
to the decisions of this Court in as much as to establish sub-letting it must E 
be found that the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises and 
such possession must be backed by some consideration. 
On behalf of the respondent-landlord it was contended that since the 
conclusion of the Appellate Authority was based on mis-construction of certain F 
documents and on mis-reading of relevant materials by a cryptic order without 
even noticing the detailed reasons given by the Rent Controller, the Single 
Judge of the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusions 
of the Appellate Authority. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellate Authority by misreading and misconstruing certain 
documents set aside the findings of the Rent Controller. High Court was 
therefore, fully justified in interfering with the conclusion of the Appellate 
Authority and correcting the error of the said Authority. (455-H; 456-A} 
G 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 In a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the 
High Court cannot sit in appeal over the find

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