TMI Blog1961 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sometime in 1940 and a term in the contract gave the tenant right to sub-let. It was alleged that a letter written by the tenant which embodied the terms of the tenancy was in the possession of the landlord and a demand was made for its production. The case of the tenant was that the sub-tenancy commenced in the year 1951, that is to say, before the passing of the Act of 1952, and the tenant was not required to obtain the written consent of the landlord to sublet Admittedly, in this case, no written consent was proved. We need not mention the other allegations and counter-allegations which are usual in proceedings between landlords and tenants, the most important of them being about the arrears of rent, which the tenant under permission of the Court ultimately deposited in Court. The issue on which the decisions below have differed was framed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, in the following terms: Did the plaintiff consent to the sub- letting of parts of the demised premises by the defendant ? If so, when and to what effect. The trial Judge found that there was no evidence that the landlord was ever consulted before a portion of the bungalow was sublet to Dr. Moha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e written statement of the tenant, to which a passing reference has already been made. A letter was produced, and it is Ex. D- 1. That letter does not disclose all the terms of the tenancy and it would appear, therefore, that the terms of the original tenancy have not been proved in this case, and there is no material on which it can be said either way as to whether a right to sublet was conferred upon the tenant. The defendant did not insist in the Court of first instance that there was yet another letter, and the argument to that effect in this Court cannot be entertained. In reaching the conclusion that all the evidence pertinent to the issue was not considered, the learned Judge of the High Court stated that Ex.P-19, which was the petition filed by Dr. Mohani Jain under s. 8 of the Act to get the standard rent fixed was not taken into account by the Additional District Judge. That petition contained an averment that her sub-tenancy commenced on December 1, 1951 with a rent of ₹ 100/-per month, and that a cheque for ₹ 1,800/- as advance rent for 18 months was given by her in the name of the daughter of the tenant, because the tenant represented that he had no a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween an appeal and a revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as, we find, has been done is second appeals arising under the Code of Civil Procedure. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior Court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the High Court's power are limited to see whether in a case decided, there has been an assumption of jurisdiction where none existed, or a refusal of jurisdiction where it did, or there has been material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The right there is confined to jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone. In other acts, the power is not so limited, and the High Court is enabled to call for the record of a case to satisfy itself that the decision therein is according to law and to pass such orders in relation to the case, as it thinks fit. The phrase according to law refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to errors of law or of fact si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at. This observation has our full concurrence. What the learned Chief Justice has said applies to s. 35 of the Act, with which we are concerned. Judged from this point of view, the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with a plan finding of fact and more so, because he himself proceeded on a wrong assumption. The appeal thus succeeds, and is allowed with costs. The order under appeal is set aside, and that of the Additional District Judge restored. As regards eviction, the respondent has given an undertaking that he would vacate the house on or before April 25, 1962, and this has been accepted by the appellants. KAPUR J.-I agree that the appeal should be allowed and that the High Court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
