TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity. Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said decision that though Section 20 of the said Act provided that the revisional court can go into the 'propriety' of the order but it does not entitle the revisional court to re-appreciate evidence. A similar view was taken by a two Judge bench of this Court in the case of Ubaiba Vs. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC, 645. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others AIR 1988 SC 1422 which was also a three Judge Bench decision. It has been held in that case that the expression legality and propriety enables the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. A similar view was taken by another three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram Vs. Suraj Bhan and others AIR 1960 SC 655. From the above it is clear that there are conflicting views of coordinate three Judge Benches of this Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression 'legality and propriety' and whether in revisional jurisdiction the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the Controller and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller. (5) The decisions of the appellate authority and subject to such decision, the order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any court of law except as provided in sub-section (6) of this section. (6) The High Court as revisional authority, may at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded. 5. In the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, Section 23 and Section 25 provide for appeal and revision, respectively. Since we are concerned with the scope of revisional power, it is not necessary to reproduce the appellate pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and may pass such order as it may deem fit. The Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act provides that the High Court on the application of an aggrieved person may call for and examine the record of the appellate authority to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. The High Court in exercise of its revisional power may modify, annul or reverse the order or decision impugned before it or remit the matter for re-consideration. In the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the High Court has no power to act suo motu. The Kerala Rent Control Act provides that the High Court on the application of an aggrieved party may call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and pass any order that it deems fit. Like the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the Kerala Rent Control Act also does not empower the High Court to act suo motu. Though, there is some difference in the language of the revisional provision in the above three statutes but, in our opinion, the revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted. The Court while dealing with findings of fact recorded by the appellate court under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 referred to Section 50 of that Act which conferred upon the High Court revisional power. The Court observed: It is true that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 50 is not as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But at the same time it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. (emphasis supplied by us) 11. In M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar; [(1980) 4 SCC 259], the 2-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act followed Dattonpant4 and while doing so, the Court also articulated the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction . In paragraph 2 (page 261 of the Report), the Court stated as follows: 2. Appeal and revision are expressions of common usage in Indian statute and the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction is well known though not well defined. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal . Pertinently, in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works5, the Court said in unequivocal words that concurrent findings, based on evidence, cannot be touched upon by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. 12. In P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal; [1987 (Supp) SCC 250] , the Court followed Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works5 while considering the scope of revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. 13. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Dass was concerned with the revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Inter alia, the Court noted the earlier judgments of this Court in Dattonpant4 and Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and observed as under: On the first contention that the revisional powers do not extend to interference with and upsetting of findings of fact, it needs to be observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20 of the Act though re-appreciation of the evidence as such is not called for, the pleadings and evidence have to be examined to satisfy the legality, regularity of the order of the lower authorities. We are afraid this approach of the High Court is wrong. Even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner s report (Exts. C-1 and C-2 mahazar). In our considered view, the High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word propriety it cannot mean that there could be a reappreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court with reference to the exercise of revisional jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence, i.e., for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. The Court observed that ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on a wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray a lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller not according to law calling for an interference under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 17. Again in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors.; [(1999) 1 SCC 141], a 2-Judge Bench with reference to revisional power under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 observed as follows: It is no doubt true that the scope of a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act is a very limited one, but even so in examining the legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High Court could examine the facts available in order to find out whether he had correctly or on a firm legal basis approached the matters on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciate the evidence with a view to finding out whether the order of the Court of Small Causes was legal or correct. 19. In Ubaiba15, a 2-Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, considered the meaning of the expression propriety . The Court held that in re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. This is what the 2-Judge Bench said: Mr. K. Sukumaran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under the Act in question may be, but it cannot have jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority and therefore the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana (1993) 1 SCC 499 whereunder the selfsame provision of the Kerala Act was under consideration. This Court after noticing the word propriety used in Section 20 came to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: 5. So far as the second submission is concerned, the language employed in Section 25 of the Act, which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, is very wide. Under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court can call for and examine the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself as to regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders passed therein. The words to satisfy itself employed in Section 25 of the Act no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding recorded by the courts below. In the present case what we find is that neither has the landlord set out his ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the original authority as well as the appellate authority, no interference by the High Court was called for. 24. In Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors.; [(2009) 15 SCC 528], this Court, while dealing with revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, observed that the High Court could interfere with concurrent orders of the tribunals in revisional jurisdiction only if their findings are perverse or arbitrary and irregular or improper. 25. Before we consider the matter further to find out the scope and extent of revisional jurisdiction under the above three Rent Control Acts, a quick observation about the appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction is necessary. Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice-versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d broadly such power has the same scope save and except the power to invoke revisional jurisdiction suo motu unless so provided expressly. None of these statutes confers on revisional authority the power as wide as that of appellate court or appellate authority despite such power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under these provisions to bring the orders of the Trial Court/Rent Controller and Appellate Court/Appellate Authority for re-hearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings. 32. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works5 that where both expressions appeal and revision are employed in a statute, obviously, the expression revision is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression appeal . The use of two expressions appeal and revision when used in one statute conferring appellate power and revisional power, we think, is not without purpose and significance. Ordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e court/tribunal is according to law, is required to be seen on the touchstone whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Ram Dass2 does not lay down as a proposition of law that the revisional power of the High Court under the Rent Control Act is as wide as that of the Appellate Court or the Appellate Authority or such power is coextensive with that of the Appellate Authority or that the concluded finding of fact recorded by the original Authority or the Appellate Authority can be interfered with by the High Court by re-appreciating evidence because revisional court/authority is not in agreement with the finding of fact recorded by the Court/Authority below. Ram Dass2 does not exposit that the revisional power conferred upon the High Court is as wide as an appellate power to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court/Authority below. Rather, it emphasises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in revisional jurisdiction. 37. The statement in M.S. Zahed12 that under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence with a view to find out whether the order of Small Causes Court is legal and correct must be understood in light of the observations made therein, namely, that revisional power cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal. 38. Shaw Wallace18 has relied upon M.S. Zahed12 and observed that the High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the regularity of the proceeding, of the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, on examination, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass such order accordingly. In Shaw Wallace18, this Court does not lay down that the High Court can reappreciate the evidence to come to conclusion different from the court/authority below as the appellate Court. 39. Rukmini1 holds, and in our view, rightly that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
