YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. versus KHURSHEED AKRAM

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 1069 · Decided: 28-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1069 
"" 
t 
YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. 
A 
v 
KHURSHEED AKRAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 1901 of 2003) 
MAY 28, 2008 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 
·-~ 
JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115 - Jurisdiction un-
der - Scope - Both Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court c 
determined the provisional rent for the shop in question at the 
rate of Rs.4001- p.m.- Revision petition - High Court reversed 
the concurrent findings of the two courts below and directed 
the Trial Court to determine provisional rent at the rate of 
Rs.2001- p.m. on the premise that it was the rent last paid by D 
~ 
the tenant - Challenge to - Justification - Held: Justified -
~ 
Under s. 115, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence 
and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts 
below by taking a different view of the evidence - High Court 
is empowered only to intetfere with the findings of fact if the E 
findings are perverse or there has been a non-appreciation or 
non-consideration of material evidence on record by the courts 
below - On facts, the High Court acted with material irregular-
ity to intetfere with the well-merited concurrent findings and 
.. 
reasonings recorded by two courts below - It lost sight of the 
; 
important fact that it was provisional determination of rent by F 
the Trial Court and the eviction suit was still pending before it 
for final decision. 
The High Court, while allowing a civil revision peti-
tion, re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the con-
G 
current findings of the courts below i.e. the Trial Court 
~ 
and the lower Appellate Court, holding that they commit-
~ 
ted jurisdictional error in determining the provisional rent 
for the shop in question under s.13(3) of the Rajasthan 
1069 
H 
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 
A Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 at the rate 
of Rs. 400/- p.m. Further, the High Court directed the Trial 
Court to determine provisional rent of the very same shop 
at the rate of Rs.200/-p.m. on the premise that it was the 
rent last paid by the tenant-Respondent. 
B 
Before this Court, the Appellants-landlords con-
tended that the order of the High Court was perverse, er-
roneous and illegal as the High Court had exceeded its 
jurisdiction under s.115 CPC to replace concurrent find-
ings of facts with its own findings as if it was exercising 
C the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Under s.115 CPC, the High Court cannot re-
appreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the con-
D current findings of the Courts below by taking a different 
4-. 
view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only 
~ 
to interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are per-
verse or there has been a non-appreciation or non-con-
sideration of the material evidence on record by the courts 
E below. Simply because another view of the evidence may 
be taken is no ground for the High Court to interfere in its 
revisional jurisdiction. [Para 15] [1076-G & H; 1077-A & B] 
2. Considering all the facts and circumstances in the 
present case, the order of the High Court cannot be sus-
F tained and as such is being set aside. The High Court 
acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregular-
ity to interfere with the well-merited concurrent findings 
and reasonings recorded by two courts below. The High 
Court lost sight of the important fact that it was provisional 
G determination of the amount of rent by the trial court and 
the eviction suit is still pending before it for final decision. 
[Para 16] [1077-B,C & D] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1901 
H of 2003 
.... .. 
YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. v 
1071 
KHURSHEED AKRAM [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 
.,, 
~ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 of A 
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at 
Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision No. 669 of 2001 
Ajay Choudhary for the Appellants. 
Abhijeet Sinha and Ejaz Maqbool for the Respondents. 
B 
.... 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. The subject-matter of 
the challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the High Court of 
Rajasthan passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.669/2001 c 
on 181h July 2001 setting aside the judgments of the Courts below 
where both the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court 
determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the 
Rajasth

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