Case Note & Summary
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant before the Rent Controller, Karnal, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The dispute concerned House No.372, Ward No.7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, comprising two rooms, a verandah, kitchen, and open courtyard. The landlord sought eviction on four grounds: default in payment of arrears of rent from 1 August 1979 to 31 July 1982 at Rs.20 per month totaling Rs.720 plus house tax of Rs.90; acts diminishing the value and utility of the premises by tethering cattle and putting dung cakes on walls; cessation of occupation of the tenanted premises for more than a year without reasonable cause; and acquisition by the tenant of a reasonably sufficient alternative residential house, House No.351/7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal, purchased in his wife's name. These grounds corresponded to Sections 13(2)(i), 13(2)(iii), 13(2)(v), and 13(3)(a)(iv) of the Act respectively. The respondent-tenant contested the proceedings, denying the landlord's competence, claiming tender of arrears of rent, asserting that the house bought in his wife's name was small and that due to strained relations with his wife he continued to live in the disputed premises with his married son and family. The Rent Controller found that the landlord was competent to initiate proceedings and that the default ground under Section 13(2)(i) became non-existent on payment of arrears, house tax, and interest on 18 January 1983. The Controller also found no reliable evidence of acts diminishing value. However, the Controller concluded that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of more than four months without reasonable cause and had shifted with his family to the alternative house in September 1981, which was reasonably sufficient. The Rent Controller therefore ordered eviction under Sections 13(2)(v) and 13(3)(a)(iv). The Appellate Authority, Karnal, re-examined the evidence and dismissed the tenant's appeal, affirming the eviction. The tenant then filed a civil revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 15(6) of the Act. The High Court, by judgment dated 19 February 1991, set aside the concurrent findings of the two lower authorities, holding that it was not established that the tenant had acquired or was in possession of reasonably sufficient accommodation. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court framed the primary legal issue as whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction could reassess evidence and substitute its own conclusions for concurrent findings of fact without recording that those findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The Court examined the distinction between appeal and revision, noting that the Act provides one appeal under Section 15(2) and a discretionary revision under Section 15(6), which are different in scope and content. An appeal allows rehearing on law and facts, whereas revision is limited to satisfying legality or propriety; the revisional authority cannot reappreciate evidence unless the statute expressly confers that power. Relying on Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co., and Neta Ram v. Jivan Lal, the Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction does not include the power to reverse concurrent findings without showing how those findings are erroneous. The Court found that the High Court had ignored material evidence: both accommodations had almost the same capacity, and the tenant's defence of strained relations with his wife was found false by the two lower authorities. The Court concluded that the High Court committed a grave error by equating revisional powers with those of a regular appeal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's revisional order, and restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Grounds for Eviction - Cessation of Occupation and Alternative Accommodation - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Sections 13(2)(v), 13(3)(a)(iv) - The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found that the tenant ceased to occupy the demised premises since September 1981 and shifted to House No.351 acquired in his wife's name, which was reasonably sufficient. The Supreme Court held that these concurrent findings were based on evidence and should not have been disturbed by the High Court. Held that eviction was justified on these grounds (Paras 3-5, 10-11). B) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Distinction between Appeal and Revision - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 15(6) - The High Court's revisional power is to satisfy itself as to legality or propriety, not to reassess evidence like an appeal. The Legislature provided one appeal under Section 15(2) and a discretionary revision under Section 15(6), which are distinct in scope. Held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own conclusions on facts without finding the concurrent findings perverse or based on no evidence (Paras 7-10). C) Precedent - Scope of Revisional Power - No Reappreciation of Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 (analogous) - The Court relied on Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co., and Neta Ram v. Jivan Lal to emphasise that revisional jurisdiction does not include rehearing on facts unless expressly conferred. Held that the fine distinction between appeal and revision must be maintained (Paras 8-9). D) Evidence - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference by Revisional Court - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 15(6) - The High Court ignored evidence that both accommodations had almost the same capacity and that the tenant's defence of strained relations with wife was false. The Supreme Court held that unless findings are wholly perverse or materially unjust, the revisional court should not interfere. Held that the High Court's reversal was erroneous and the eviction order was restored (Paras 6, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 could reassess evidence and set aside concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority without recording a finding that such conclusions were perverse or based on no evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's revisional order, and restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Law Points
- High Court revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1973 does not permit reappreciation of evidence
- concurrent findings of fact can be interfered only if perverse or based on no evidence
- distinction between appeal and revision
- tenant's acquisition of alternative accommodation and cessation of occupation are grounds for eviction
