TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN versus RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 11-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 441 
TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN 
v. 
RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20833 of 2017) 
DECEMBER 11,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, .TJ.] 
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -.s.25 - Scope of 
revision under - Suit filed by appellant-landlord against respondent-
te11a11t - Decree of eviction passed by Trial Court - Respondent 
filed Revision before High Court which was allowed holding that 
rate of rent was Rs.2501- p.m. and not Rs.15001- p.m. as held by the 
Trial Court - On appeal, held: High Cou11 committed error in setting 
aside the findings of the trial court on the rate of rent - Pure finding 
of fact based on appreciation of evidence not to be interfered with 
A 
B 
c 
in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.25 of 1887 Act except on limited D 
grow1ds - Present is not a case where High Court set aside the 
finding of the Trial Court on any of such grounds where Revisional 
Court uls. 25 can interfere - High Court committed error in setting 
aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court - Judgment of 
High Court is set aside and decree of Trial Court is restored - Rent 
Control and Eviction. 
E 
Rent Control and Eviction - Pleadings - Suit filed in Small 
Causes Court by landlord, for recovery of rent with compensation, 
in respect of suit shop on the ground that respondent had not paid 
the rent from December, 2000 - Formal prayer for eviction added 
in the suit by landlord by way of amendment - Plea of tenant that 
landlord waived his right of claiming eviction in the notice and also 
in the suit and thus, the prayer for eviction added by amendment 
was barred by limitation - Held: Plea of tenant not tenable - In the 
notice dtd. 07.09.2001, the landlord insisted 011 termination of 
tenancy and contemplated eviction of the tenant - Fu11her, prayer 
for eviction which was formally added by amendment cannot be 
said to be barred by time since suit was filed i11 the year 2001 itself 
- Thus, in the instant case, there was no waiver of relief of eviction 
either in the notice given by the landlord to the tenant or in the suit 
- Waiver. 
441 
F 
G 
H 
I 
' 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Pro11incial Small Cause· Courts Act, 1887 - s.25 - Re11ision 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
under - Scope of, as against u/s.115, CPC - Discussed - Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded by the Trial Court were 
based on evidence brought on record. However, High Court, 
did not refer to the factors which weighed the Trial Court in coming 
to the conclusion that rate of rent was Rs. 1500/- per month. 
High Court committed an error in setting aside the findings of 
the Trial Court on the rate of rent. [Para 11] [447-E-G] 
1.2 The High Court was exercising the juris.diction under 
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 
Jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act is wider than the 
Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. But pure finding 
of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be interfered 
with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887. 
There arc very limited grounds on which there can be interference 
in exercise of jurisdiction unde•· Section 25; they are, when (i) 
Findings are perverse or (ii) .based on no material or (iii) 
Findings have been arrived at upon taking into consideration the 
inadmissible evidences or (iv) Findings have been arrived at 
without consideration of relevant evidences. Present is not a 
case where High Court set aside the finding of the Trial Court on 
any of above grounds where. Rcvisional Court under Section 25 
can interfere. High Court has not even referred to the reasons 
given by the Trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the 
rate of rent is Rs. 1500/ per month. [Paras 12, 14 and 15] [447-
G; 449-D-F] 
2.1 Further, from the avcrmcnts of notice dated 07.09.2001 
brought on record by the appellant- landlord, it is clear that 
tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated eviction of 
G the respondent-tenant. Thus, the landlord was clearly insisting 
on termination of the tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of 
action of not handing over of the possession. Thus, there is no 
question of the waiver of eviction. The prayer of eviction whi<;h 
was formally added by amendment cannot be said to be barred by 
time since suit was filed in the year 2001 itself. It was clearly 
H 
pleaded in the plaint that in spite of the service of

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