1. Eviction petition for additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K.Mukherjee : S.P.Bharucha
D.Sankaranarayanan
Versus
Punjab National Bank
Case No. : 4492 of 1986
Date of Decision : 2/10/94
A High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot treat a revision petition as a second appeal or reverse findings of fact by reassessing evidence.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 10(3)(c) - Eviction of tenant for additional accommodation - Expansion of clinic - Revision petition - Scope of jurisdiction - High Court cannot treat a revision petition as a second appeal and reverse findings of fact based on a reassessment of evidence. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought to evict a tenant from the first floor of a building to obtain additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding a clinic conducted on the ground floor. The eviction petition was initially dismissed, but the first appellate court subsequently allowed the landlord's appeal. The tenant then filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was allowed, reversing the findings of fact of the first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court treated the revision petition as if it were a second appeal and reversed the findings of fact of the first appellate court upon a reassessment of the evidence, which is impermissible in a revision petition.
Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in a revision petition by reassessing evidence to reverse the findings of fact established by the first appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: A court exercising revisional jurisdiction is not permitted to reassess evidence or reverse findings of fact as it would in a second appeal.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Landlord contends that the High Court impermissibly treated a revision petition as a second appeal by reassessing evidence to reverse findings of fact. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court erred by treating the revision petition as a second appeal and impermissibly reassessing evidence to reverse findings of fact. (Para 2 )
4. Reassessment of evidence and reversal of findings of fact are impermissible within the scope of a revision petition. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — First appellate court judgment restored — Tenant granted time to vacate. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Is it permissible for a court to reassess evidence and reverse findings of fact in a revision petition?
No, it is impermissible for a court to treat a revision petition as a second appeal by reassessing evidence to reverse the findings of fact established by the lower appellate court. (Para 2 )
(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave by the landlord of premises situated at Door No. 29, Car Street, Ambasamvdram, Tamil Nadu. The appellant is a doctor and conducts a clinic on the ground floor of the building on the first floor of which the respondent is a tenant. The landlord called upon the tenant to vacate the first floor as he wanted the additional accommodation for the purposes of expanding his clinic. The petition in this behalf was filed under the provisions of Section 10(3(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The eviction petition was dismissed. The landlord thereupon filed an appeal which, upon consideration of the facts on the record, was allowed. The tenant thereupon filed a revision petition before the High court at Madras and the revision petition was allowed, where against this appeal is filed.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and read the judgment under appeal and other relevant papers. We are of the view that learned counsel for the appellant is right when he contends that the revision petition was treated by the High court as if it were a second appeal and, upon a reassessment of the evidence, the findings of facts of the first appellate court were reversed. This, in our view, was impermissible in a revision petition. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and judgment and appeal of the first appellate court is restored.
(3) UPON the application of learned counsel for the tenant and with the consent of learned counsel for the landlord, we direct that the tenant shall not be evicted from the premises on or before 1/9/1995 upon its filing the usual undertaking within six weeks.
(4) NO order as to costs.
