Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a landlord, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord had applied for permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondents under Clause 13(3)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the said Order. The Rent Controller granted the permission. The respondents appealed, and the appellate authority, based on municipal assessment sheets, doubted whether respondent No.1 Ramgopal was the tenant or whether one Shamsunder was the tenant. Consequently, the appellate authority remanded the matter to the Rent Controller. The landlord challenged this remand order. The High Court observed that revenue records are not evidence of title or transfer of property, and the appellate court lost sight of the fact that it was hearing an appeal and the entire case was open before it. The appellate court could have decided the matter itself without remanding. The High Court set aside the impugned order, relying on the principle laid down in Janba Daulatrao Borkar v. Rajeshkumar Ramjiwan Agrawal (1975 Maharashtra Law Journal 747) that the appellate court must properly appreciate the evidence on record and apply its mind independently. The order of remand resulted in manifest injustice.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Appellate Authority's Powers - Remand - The appellate authority under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3) - The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against the Rent Controller's order granting permission to terminate tenancy, remanded the matter on the ground of doubt as to the identity of the tenant based on municipal assessment sheets. The High Court held that revenue records are not evidence of title or transfer of property, and the appellate court could have decided the matter itself without remanding. The impugned order was set aside as it resulted in manifest injustice. (Paras 1-4) B) Evidence - Revenue Records - Evidentiary Value - Municipal assessment sheets - The court held that revenue records and entries therein are not evidence of title or transfer of property, such as a lease. The appellate court erred in relying on such records to create doubt about the tenant's identity. (Para 3) C) Appellate Court - Duty to Appreciate Evidence - The appellate court must properly appreciate the evidence on record, apply its mind independently, and write an order indicating that the evidence has been fairly and properly dealt with, as laid down in Janba Daulatrao Borkar v. Rajeshkumar Ramjiwan Agrawal, 1975 Maharashtra Law Journal 747. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate authority under the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order was justified in remanding the matter to the Rent Controller on the ground of doubt as to the identity of the tenant based on municipal assessment sheets.
Final Decision
The impugned order of the appellate authority is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a direction to properly appreciate the evidence on record and decide the appeal on merits without remanding to the Rent Controller.
Law Points
- Revenue records are not evidence of title or transfer of property
- Appellate authority must decide appeal on merits
- Remand should not be ordered when appellate court can decide itself
