Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to three writ petitions filed by tenants (M/s Spring Fresh Drinks Pvt. Ltd., M/s Raskunj, and M/s Kale Gas Company) against the respondent landlord, Gani Sons Charitable Trust, and the Administrator of Anjuman Hami EIslam. The petitioners were tenants in godowns owned by the trust. The trust filed suits for eviction and possession after terminating the tenancies by notice. The trial court decreed the suits, and the appellate court confirmed the decrees. The tenants then filed revisions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that the courts below erred in holding that the tenancy was validly terminated and that the landlord was entitled to possession. The respondents contended that the findings were concurrent and based on evidence, and no substantial question of law arose. The High Court, after examining the judgments, held that the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse. The court noted that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited and does not allow re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a jurisdictional error. The court found no such error and dismissed all three petitions, upholding the eviction decrees. The decision reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revision unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Revision - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law or perversity. The petitioners-tenants challenged the eviction decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court held that the findings of fact regarding termination of tenancy and entitlement to possession were concurrent and not perverse, hence no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-17) B) Property Law - Lease - Termination of Tenancy - Notice to Quit - The suit for possession was based on termination of lease by notice. The courts below found that the tenancy was validly terminated and the landlord was entitled to possession. The High Court upheld these findings as they were based on evidence and not suffering from any jurisdictional error. (Paras 5-10) C) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Scope of Revision - The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to cases where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court found no such error in the impugned judgments. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in a suit for eviction based on termination of lease.
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 115 CPC
- substantial question of law
- lease termination
- eviction decree
- tenancy at will
- notice to quit
- jurisdiction of High Court
