Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant, challenged the decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2000, which was confirmed by the Adhoc District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 98/2006. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,28,012/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The plaintiff claimed arrears of rent from 1st January 1997 to 31st December 1999 at Rs.1500/- per month, along with amounts collected by the defendant from tenants and interest. The suit was filed under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, specifically under Section 26 which confers jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court to try suits between landlord and tenant for recovery of rent. Both the trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and noting that no one appeared for the respondent, examined the concurrent findings of fact. The court held that the findings recorded by both courts below were based on appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or error of law. The court reiterated that in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, it would not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the findings were wholly unsupported by evidence or were arbitrary. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such infirmity, the writ petition was dismissed. The court also noted that the suit was within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Interference under Article 227 - The High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The courts below had decreed recovery of arrears of rent after appreciating evidence, and the High Court found no error of law or jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Court in a suit for recovery of rent.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court under Section 26 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
- 1887
- Scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India
