1. Tenant-landlord dispute over rent, taxes, and electricity charges leading to a suit for possession and arrears under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.R.Mudholkar : K.Subba Rao : R.S.Bachawat
Ratilal Balabhai Nazar
Versus
Ranchhodbhai Shankarbhai Patel
Case No. : 1012 of 1963
Date of Decision : 8/23/65
Advocates Appeared: Dadachanji J.B. : Mathur O.C. : Narain Ravindra : Peerzada A.M. : Prasad S.N. : Sen B. : Shroff I.M. : Shroff M.N.
Advocates:
A.M.PIRZADA, B.SEN, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.N.SHROFF, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.N.PRASAD
A.M.PIRZADA, B.SEN, I.M.SHROFF, J.B.DADACHAN, M.N.SHROFF, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan, S.N.PRASAD
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to jurisdictional errors. An erroneous construction of law by a subordinate court does not justify interference if the court possessed the jurisdiction to decide the issue and did so.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 12 and 29 - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Erroneous construction of a provision of law - Whether it constitutes a ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - If the trial court had jurisdiction to decide a question before it and did decide it, whether it decided it rightly or wrongly, the court had jurisdiction to decide the case and even if it decided the question wrongly, it did not exercise its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity (Paras 3 and 4).
(B) Jurisdiction - Distinction between errors of law which have relation to questions of jurisdiction and errors of law which have no such relation - Revisional jurisdiction is permissible in cases where the court assumes jurisdiction not vested in it or refuses to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, but it is not permissible where the court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, arrives at a conclusion erroneous in law or in fact (Paras 3 and 4).
Facts of the case:
A landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, including municipal taxes and electricity charges. The trial court refused the relief of possession, holding that the rent was inclusive of taxes and charges. On appeal, the lower appellate court granted possession to the landlord based on its construction of the rent control statute. The tenant challenged this order through a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was not competent to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure because an erroneous construction placed upon a relevant provision does not furnish a ground for interference if the subordinate court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a subordinate court has arrived at an erroneous conclusion of law while exercising its vested jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A distinction must be drawn between errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to, or are concerned with, questions of jurisdiction of the said court, and errors of law which have no such relation or connection. An error of law that does not affect jurisdiction does not constitute an illegal exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an erroneous construction of statutory provisions by a subordinate court justifies interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )
3. The court distinguished between errors of law relating to jurisdiction and mere errors of law or fact, noting the latter do not justify revisional interference. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure is limited to jurisdictional errors and does not extend to correcting erroneous constructions of law or fact. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed; parties directed to bear their own costs. (Para 4 )
6. When can a High Court interfere with a subordinate court's order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Interference is permissible only if the subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. Mere errors of law or fact are insufficient. (Para 3 )
7. Does an erroneous construction of a statutory provision by a subordinate court constitute a ground for revision under Section 115, CPC?
No, an erroneous construction of a relevant provision does not furnish a ground for interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided the court had jurisdiction to decide the question. (Para 3 )
8. What is the distinction between errors of law that allow revisional interference and those that do not?
A distinction exists between errors of law that relate to or are concerned with the jurisdiction of the court and errors of law that have no such relation or connection. Only the former justify revisional interference. (Para 4 )
J.R.MUDHOLKAR, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High court of Gujarat dismissing summarily the appellants application under S. 115, Code of Civil Procedure for revision of the judgment of the Principal Judge of the City Civil court, Ahmedabad passed in an appeal under S. 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
(2) THE appellant is the tenant of certain premises belonging to the respondent, the rent of which was fixed at Rs. 50.00. According to the respondent, the appellant was required under the terms of the tenancy to pay in addition municipal taxes and charges for electric energy consumed by him. The appellant did not pay rent from 1/06/1956 for a period of over six months, in consequence of which the respondent gave a notice to him on 20/02/1957 terminating his tenancy and also demanding the rent and other charges which were due from the appellant. As the appellant did neither vacate the premises, nor pay the arrears due from him, the respondent instituted a suit on 1/04/1957 for recovery of possession and for the recovery of Rs. 838-11-0. This amount comprised of the standard ard in arrears amounting to Rs. 600.00, proportionate electric charges of Rs. 59-13-0; Rs. 158-14-0 in respect of municipal taxes and Rs. 25.00 as charges incurred for giving notice to him. In his written statement the appellant pleaded that the rent of R. 50 p. m. was inclusive of taxes as well as of charges for consumption of electricity. Subsequently, however, as the appellant sought leave to amend his written statement by adding to it the plea that the rent agreed to originally between the parties was excessive and that the reasonable rent would be Rs. 30.00 p. m. The amendment was allowed by the trial court, and upon the finding that the standard rent of Rs. 50.00 was inclusive of municipal taxes and electric charges and the relief for possession was refused to the respondent. The court found that on 30/06/1960 the total amount due to the respondent in respect of rent was Rs. 2,550.00. It may be mentioned that at the first bearing of the suit the appellant had in fact deposited Rs. 2,890.00 in court, which, according to him, was an amount larger than that due to the respondent on the date of deposit. While passing the decree the trial court directed that out of the amount deposited by the appellant a sum of Rs. 2,550.00 and half the costs of the suit be paid to the respondent and the remaining amount returned to the appellant. In appeal the Principal Judge of the City Civil court held that the appellant was bound to pay taxes and electric charges and also held that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties about standard rent. But upon a construction placed by him on the provisions of S. 12 of the Act the learned Judge held that the case fell under S. 12(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto and not under either Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) of Sub-s. (3) of S. 12. Upon that view he decreed the relief for possession in favour of the respondent and alse held the respondent entitled to a sum of Rs. 90-9-0 in addition to the amount of Rs. 2,550.00 decreed by the trial court.
(3) MR. Peerzada, who appears for the appellant, relying upon the decision of this court in Jashwantrai Malukchand v. Anandilal Bapalal, C. A. No. 539 of 1963, D/7-12. 1964: (AIR 1965 SC 1419), contended that the view taken by the Principal Judge is not in accord with what this court has taken in the aforesaid case. Prima facie the decision of this court supports the contention of the appellant; but even so, we are constrained to hold that the High court was not, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 115, Code of Civil Procedure which was invoked by the appellant, competent to interfere and that the limitations placed upon the powers of the High court under that section would also circumscribe the power of this court to interfere under Article 186 of the Constitution. No
