TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respondent's own use and occupation in connection with a dyeing factory which he proposed to set up and expansion of the existing business. All the grounds were nagatived, concurrently, by the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority. On a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the High Court allowed the application for eviction on the fast of the grounds, setting aside the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on that question. The principal submission of Dr. Y.S. Chitale learned Counsel for the appellant was that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering in the exercise of its revisional powers, with the concurrent find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice. Revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily understood with reference to our statutes is always included in appellate jurisdiction but not vice-versa. There are general observations. The question of the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction has to be considered in each case with reference to the language employed by the state. 3. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960 enables any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. Section 25 provides that the High Court may on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority call for and examine the record of appellate authority, to satisfy itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Devakate v. Vithalrao Marushirao Jenagaval it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of first appeal . 4. Some argument was advanced whether a finding as to the bona fide requirement of a landlord is or not a mixed question of fact and law. Reference was made to Madan Lal Pun v. Sain Das Berry and Kamla Sont v. Rup Lal Mehra AIR 1969 NSC 186 on the one hand and T.B. Sarvate v. Nemichand 1966 MPLG 26 and Mattulal v. Radhe Lal on the other hand. We do not think it is necessary for the purpose of this case to enter into discussion of this question. Merely to hold that a question is a mixed question of fact it and law is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of revisional power. It must, further be shown that there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
