LexSHRI MUNDRI LAL versus SMT. SUSHILA RANI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRI MUNDRI LAL A ) v. SMT. SUSHILA RANI AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] B Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and ~ Eviction) Act, 1972-s. 2(2)-Suitfor eviction of tenanted premises- Seeking exemption of applicability of the Act-Claiming the premises c to be new construction falling within exemption provision-Trial Court holding that the Act was not applicable as the premises would be deemed to be newly constructed-Revision application in terms of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act-High Court holding that the Act was applicable-Supreme Court setting aside the judgment of High D Court and remitting for fresh consideration-High Court denied ... adduction of additional evidence and refused to interfere with the question regarding applicability of the Act in exercise of revisional jurisdiction-On appeal, held: The Act was not applicable as in the facts of the case, the construction would be deemed to be new- Adduction of additional evidence rejected on valid grounds-High E Court rightly refused to interfere with the finding of fact in exercise of revisionaljurisdiction-Provincial Small Causes Courts Act-s. 25. Provincial Small Causes Courts Act-s. 25-Revisional jurisdiction under-Scope of-Held: Such jurisdiction can be exercised F only when a question of law arises-A pure finding of fact based on apprecimion of evidence may not be interfered with-But, if such finding is based on irrelevant factors, it can be interfered with- Revisional jurisdiction under the Act is wider than the jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-s. 115. G Pleadings-Inadequate pleadings-Effect of-Held: When parties go into trial knowing fully well about the issues involved, the judgment based on inadequate pleadings would not have effect. 99 H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A Appellant was the tenant and respondent was the landlord of the premises in question. Respondent filed a suit for eviction, rather ( than filing an application under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground that the premises being a new construction, the Act was not B applicable to the same under exemption provision i.e. Section 2(2) of the Act. One of the issues was with regard to applicability of the Act to the premises. Trial Court held that the property in question would be deemed to be newly constructed and hence the Act was not applicable on the same. Appellant filed Revision Application ~ c thereagainst in terms of S~ction 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act High Court though approved finding of fact by trial Court, but relying on a judgment, held that the Act would be applicable as period of 10 years [the exempted period by Section 2 (2)) have lapsed during the pendency of the suit. In appeal Supreme Court set D aside the order holding that the judgment relied on by the High Court, had been overruled by another decision. The matter was remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law. .,_ Before High Court, appellant filed an application for adduction ofadditional evidence in terms of Order 41Rule27 CPC. High Court E refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction stating that the requirements of the said provision had not been fulfilled and regarding applicability of the Act, it held that the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below, cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisionaljurisdiction. Hence the present appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Appellant's application for adduction of additional evidence has been rejected on valid grounds by the High Court. It, for cogent and sufficient reasons, refused to exercise its G discretionary jurisdiction. There is no reason to interfere therewith. Even if the purported admission made by the respondent, a ·.-4 subsequent pleading was to be taken into consideration, still then the respondent was required to be cross-examined. Another round oflitigation would have started. [Para 19] [109-D-E] H SHRI MUND RI LAL v. SMT. SUSHILA RANI 101 1.2. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section A _). 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is wider than Section 115 CPC. But the fact that a revision is provided for by the statute, and not an appeal, itself is suggestive of the fact that ordinarily revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a quest
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.