IMPORTANT POINT
In case subsequent event or fact having bearing on the issues or relief in a suit or proceeding (i.e. appeal or revision) to which any party seeks to bring on record, the Court should not shut its door. Therefore, normally, as revisional Court, it could not have embarked upon recording finding of facts but where any subsequent event or fact was legally brought on record (in this case through report of a local Commissioner) it could enter into decide the question, which could invariably include recording finding of fact.

Headnote:(i) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Sections 13 and 15(5)-Eviction petition on grounds, inter alia, disputed shop/building is unfit or unsafe for human habitation-Trial Court decreed eviction-Appellate Court reversed-High Court in Revision under Section 15(5)-Restored trial Court on the basis of report of Local Commissioner appointed by it which was objected to by Tenant-Whether the High Court could have appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and to reverse finding of the appellate Court based on the report of such Commissioner? Yes.
       Held : In view of the legal principle we have stated herein before, a Court could take into consideration subsequent facts, event or happening which are relevant, and in the present case after expiry of about two decades if fresh local Commissioner was appointed to find out the condition of shop, and it found two big cracks on two walls of the disputed shop, it cannot be said consideration of such evidence to be illegal. On the merits it is submitted, one of the cracks is on the Dehori side which is in possession of the landlord. Even if this to be, this would make no difference for drawing any inference about the condition of the wall. There are always two sides of any wall, cracks on any side of the wall, if it weakens the wall, may not be on the side of such an occupant, it would make no difference. Even if the cracks on the wall are on the other side which is a passage, still as it constitutes the same wall as that of the shop would have the same result. If the cracks have weakened the wall, it would crumble not withstanding it is not on the side of the shop. This coupled with the condition of the roof which deteriorated as found by the local Commissioner would be a valid consideration to find whether the shop is unfit for human consumption. So far the submission that the appellant has filed a complaint against the landlord for causing damage to the roof, we have perused the FIR. Though FIR records allegations directly against the landlord but records no allegation of landlord damaging the roof. (Para 17)
       The question whether the roof was damaged by the landlord or was damaged because of the building being old and dilapidated is a question of fact, proof of it could only be, if at all, through leading evidence and not through a local Commissioner. A local Commissioner could only report the fact of existing condition of the building and not who did it. It was open for him, if appellant so desired for praying to the Court to grant time to lead evidence in this regard. Since court permitted, a local Commissioner to report, so it would have granted the prayers for leading evidence. Hence we do not find any of the objections raised by the appellant, have any merit. (Para 19)
       Normally, as revisional court, it could not have embarked upon recording finding of facts but where any subsequent fact was legally brought on record, it could enter into and decide the question, which could inevitably include recording find of fact. (Para 19)
       Held finally : In view of the finding recorded by us we record our conclusions to the aforesaid two questions raised in the appeals to the following effect:
        (1) On the facts and circumstances of this case, where fresh evidence was permitted to be brought on the record, reversing of the finding of fact by the High Court, while exercising Revisional jurisdiction, cannot be said to be such that it acted beyond its jurisdiction vested to it under the law.
        (2) Once, Court could bring on the record, subsequent fact, event or happening, which has direct bearing on the issues or relief claimed, on the facts and circumstances of this case, then the High Court committed no error of jurisdiction to permit the Commissioner report to be placed on the record and then on which to rely while exercising its revisional power under sub-section 5 of Section 15 of the aforesaid Act. (Para 21)
       (ii) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section 13-Eviction on ground that disputed shop was unfit or unsafe for human habitation-Based on subsequent event brought on record by report of local Commissioner in revision under Section 15(5) of the Act-Prayer that case be remanded for additional evidence-Whether be granted? (No) (C.P.C. Order 41 Rule 27-Additional evidence-But time granted to vacate.
       Held : Lastly, the submission was that the case may be remitted back to the court for permitting the appellants to lead evidence to contradict, what is brought through the Commissioner report. We have examined this aspect also. Normally if parties so desire, in a case where fresh facts are brought on the record as a relevant subsequent event, the court grants such prayer. In the present case, we find that before the High Court, at no stage, the appellant made any such request. Even in this appeal before us, the appellant could not point any such ground been raised. It is not even pleaded nor raised any ground that the High Court refused such a request for leading any such evidence. In view of these facts in the present case we do not find any merit even of this last submission. (Para 20)
       Consequently held : In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by us we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed with costs on the parties. (Para 22)
       But also held : Lastly, learned counsel made request to grant substantial time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question as he has been in possession of this shop for a very long time, otherwise it would affect his business adversely. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case we grant time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question by or before 31st December, 2001 subject to the usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks from today. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Misra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are by the defendant-tenant as against the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction by which it reversed the finding of the appellate court that the disputed shop in question is not unsafe for human habitation. The questions raised in these appeals are:

(1) Whether the High Court under its Revisional Jurisdiction which limits to examine the "legality and propriety" of the appellate court order was justified in reversing its findings based on evidence on record.

(2) Whether the High Court could have appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and to reverse the finding of the appellate court based on the report of such Commissioner.

3. In order to appreciate the controversies we are herewith giving some of the essential facts. The appellant took the disputed shop on rent from one Aya Ram who sold the said shop to one Prakash Rani. The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 are Lrs. of this Prakash Rani, who filed petition for eviction against the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) from the disputed shop. The eviction petition was based on three grounds: (a) The appellant has not paid the rent from 2nd July, 1968, (b) He has sub-let the shop without taking the permission of the landlord and (c) the building is in dilapidated condition with cracks hence not fit for human habitation requiring demolition and reconstruction. The appellant denied all these and other allegations made in the petition. The trial Court decreed the eviction petition. It held that the appellant tendered the rent on 24.10.1975 about which no grievance was made by the respondent-landlord at the time of arguments, the shop was sub-let by the appellant, and the disputed shop is unfit for human habitation. The appellant filed appeal and the Appellate Court set aside the trial Court findings. It held that sub-letting has not been proved. It further, on the basis of evidence on record, held that it cannot be said that the cracks in the building have made it unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Aggrieved by this the respondent filed revision in the High Court. During the pendency of the said revision an application was moved by respondents for appointment of a local Commissioner which was objected through written objection by the appellant. The said local Commissioner submitted his report to the court, the relevant portion of his report is quoted hereunder :

"...there was a hole in the roof measuring 13" x 12" which had been temporarily shut from the interior side with the help of wooden planks by giving the support of sticks and from the upper side this hole was found and 4 Ballies near the hole were in a decayed condition and wooden planks near the hole were in a bad condition due to seepage of water from the hole of the roof.....The outerside of the right side wall of the shop, there was a big crack on the beginning of the wall extending from top to more than middle of the wall. This crack measuring 2"x 7.5" (depth) from the upper side and 1.5" x 6.5" from the lower side and in the end of the same wall, there was also a big crack measuring 2"x 8" from the upperside 2"x7" from the lower side and the roof of the passage was in a totally damaged condition which did not cover the shop but covers the passage."

4. The appellant filed objection to this report pointing certain anomalies with a prayer to ignore this report and appoint another local Commissioner. The High Court confirmed as against respondent-landlord, the finding of the Appellate Court on the question of sub-letting. However, it reversed its finding based on the said local Commissioner report by holding that the disputed shop is unfit for human habitation. The appellant being aggrieved by this order has filed the present appeal.

5. The submission is, power of revision cannot be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 224

Cases Referred (4)