Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha, CJI., Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Dilbahar Singh - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6177 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2162 OF 2004 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2901 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.6954 OF 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7520 OF 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5212 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2859 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3313 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2006 SLP (C) NO.34303 of 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7491 OF 2004 SLP (C) No.11931 of 2011 SLP (C) No.22248 OF 2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.7066 OF 2005
Decided on : 27-08-2014
(b) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Section 15(6); Section 20, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; Section 25, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Examining correctness, legality propriety and regularity of appellate findings vis-à-vis re-appreciation of evidence – Revisional power under these provisions are wider than section 115, CPC – Still, not as wide as appellate power – When appeal and revision are both provided, revision does not permit re-hearing – Under the Rent Control Acts, High Court cannot convert itself into second court of appeal while exercising revisional power – High Court can examine finding of fact by appellate court to satisfy itself that the decision is “according to law” – High Court, in revision, cannot reverse finding of fact merely because on re-appreciation of evidence it has a different view – Revisional court may appreciate whether correct law has been applied – Pure findings of fact cannot be interfered in revision – High Court in revision may modify, annul, reverse or remit an appellate decision or order for reconsideration – But it cannot re-appreciate the evidence – However, High Court can interfere with finding of fact which is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of evidence. (Para 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45)
(1980) 4 SCC 259; (1975) 2 SCC 246; (1991) 1 SCC 422; (1999) 6 SCC 222; (1999) 1 SCC 141; (1999) 1 SCC 439; (2001) 3 SCC 445; (1993) 1 SCC 499; 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675; (1999) 5 SCC 645; (1999) 7 SCC 275; (2000) 2 SCC 135; (2006) 9 SCC 606 – Approved
AIR 1988 SC 1422 – Explained
AIR 1960 SC 655; 1987 (Supp) SCC 250; (1969) 2 SCC 194; 1969 UJ 432; (1991) 1 SCC 343; 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675; (1999) 1 SCC 439; (2009) 15 SCC 528 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This group of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499, Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1988 SC 1422. Ram Dass has followed Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 655. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words “legality and propriety” under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 in support of its contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On the other hand, the respondent pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1988 SC 1422 wherein it has been held that the expression “legality and propriety” enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. The 2-Judge Bench felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its resolution referred the matter to the larger Bench.
Finding of the Court:
Revisional powers under Rent Control Acts are wider than section 115, CPC but not as wider as appellate powers.
Result:
Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 approved. Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, AIR 1988 SC 1422 explained.
Judgment :
R.M. LODHA, CJI.
This group of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499], Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422]. Ram Dass has followed Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655]. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words “legality and propriety” under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Haryana Rent Control Act’), was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] in support of its contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On the other hand, the respondent pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422] wherein it has been held that the expression “legality and propriety” enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. The 2-Judge Bench felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its resolution referred the matter to the larger Bench. In the Reference Order (dated August 27, 2009), the 2-Judge Bench observed, thus:
“Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma Vs. Kallyani Sulochana And Others (1993) 1 SCC 499 wherein Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act was in question. It was held in the said decision that though Section 20 of the said Act provided that the revisional court can go into the 'propriety' of the order but it does not entitle the revisional court to re-appreciate evidence. A similar view was taken by a two Judge bench of this Court in the case of Ubaiba Vs. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC, 645.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others AIR 1988 SC 1422 which was also a three Judge Bench decision. It has been held in that case that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the High Court in revisional jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. A similar view was taken by another three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram Vs. Suraj Bhan and others AIR 1960 SC 655.
From the above it is clear that there are conflicting views of coordinate three Judge Benches of this Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression 'legality and propriety' and whether in revisional jurisdiction the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by a larger bench since this question arises in a large number of cases as similar provisions conferring power of revision exists in various rent control and other legislations, e.g. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we direct that the papers be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench.”
2. There are other appeals/SLPs in this group of matters, some of which arise from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Kerala Rent Control Act’) and the few appeals/SLPs arise from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act’). These appeals/SLPs following the Reference Order in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have also been referred to the 5-Judg
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
