IMPORTANT POINT
In revision jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Rent Control Act it is not permissible for the High Court to reassess or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by the Court below.

Headnote:(i) Haryana Urban Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973-Section 13-Bona fide requirement-Landlord claiming to be unemployed requiring premises for running karyana business-Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Court about bona fide requirements -High Court reappreciating evidence and holding that landlord got registered himself in Employment Exchange and requirement not bona fide and setting aside eviction order-High Court cannot reappreciate evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to finding of lower Court-Conclusion of Court below cannot be said as wholly unreasonable-Judgment of High Court set aside.
       Held : A perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act shows that the power of High Court to revise an order is not an appellate power, but it is also true that is not akin to power exercisable under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is no doubt true that the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority if legality or propriety of such order demands such interference. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not permissible for the High Court to reassess or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by the court below. Keeping in view the scope of the revisional power under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act, in the present case, we find that the case of the appellant was that he was unemployed. He was neither in service nor has any business and, therefore, he bona fide find required the premises for carrying on business. The High Court merely on the fact that the appellant was enrolled in the Employment Exchange at Orissa, concluded that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. Thus recorded the finding that the appellant does not intend to carry on business in the premises and his need is not bona fide. From the fact that the appellant was enrolled in the Employment Exchange at Orissa, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority concluded that the appellant is unemployed and is seeking his employment by running a business in the premises in dispute. Such a conclusion by the court below cannot be said as wholly unreasonable. It is not the case of the respondent that as a result of appellant being on the roll of employment exchange he has got appointment in any service. The High Court did not find that such a conclusion arrived at by the courts below was wholly unreasonable. We are, therefore, of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court after reassessment of evidence was not permissible under law. Consequently, the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside. (Para 5)
       (ii) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973-Section 15(6)-Revision-Scope of jurisdiction of High Court-It is not permissible for High Court to reassess or reappraise evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to finding of fact recorded by Court below. (Para 5)

ORDER

Appellant herein is the landlord of the premises whereas the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent) & Eviction Act, 1973 (in short the Act ) for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of his bona fide need for the premises. The need set up by the appellant in the said application was that he is un-employed and his elder brother is carrying on business at Balasaur in Orissa and the said business is in the name of his elder brother wherein the appellant has no interest. It was also stated that he was suffering from asthma and as per medical advice coastal area is not fit for his habitation. It was further asserted that the appellant intended to carry on business of Karyana in the premises in dispute and for that purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 45,000/- in the fixed deposit. The need set up by the landlord was denied by the tenant. However, the Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and consequently, the application filed by the landlord was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Controller. The tenant thereafter preferred a revision under sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court recorded at a finding that the need of the appellant is not bona fide. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the order of the Court below was set aside. It is against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us.

2. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged that in view of the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court, it was not open to the High Court to reassess and reappreciate the evidence and come to a different finding. We find merit in the submission. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide. The said finding was affirmed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority recorded finding to the following effect:

10. Then bona fide requirement of the landlord for the demised shop cannot be said to be his mere wish. He, no doubt, is permanently residing with his family members in Orissa but he wants to start his business in the demised shop of Karyana food grains. Though after the institution of the petition but he has also deposited Rs. 45,000/- in the bank so as to start business in the shop. He is a commerce graduate. No doubt, he has got his name registered with the Employment Exchange for service but he has not got any service by now. So looking to his unemployment he has got every reason to start his business in the shop, which belongs to him. Though the petitioner has produced the medical certificate Mark-4 and Mark-B to show that he is suffering from asthma and the climate of Balasaur, which is sea shore, is not suitable to him but even if these certificates are ignored there is no reason to hold his need to be mala fide when he has got means as well qualification to support the business."

3. Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court which reads as under:

The High Court, as revisional authority, may at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded."

4. Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act empowers the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 934

IMPORTANT POINTIn revision jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Rent Control Act it is not permissible for the High Court to reassess or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by the Court below.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
In revision jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Rent Control Act it is not permissible for the High Court to reassess or re-appraise the evidence to arrive at a finding contrary to the finding of fact recorded by the Court below.