1. Eviction suit based on rent default and unlawful subletting — dispute over whether premises were sublet. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1969 Supreme(SC) 555
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H. Hidayatullah, CJI., V. Ramaswami, G.K. Mitter, JJ.
Kashinath Keshav Pathak - Appellant
Versus
Shri Nand Kumar Pandharinath Madekar - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 1966
Decided On : 22-02-1969
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to challenge findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Scope and ambit - High Court cannot question findings of fact recorded by a subordinate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - Section 115 applies only to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, specifically regarding the irregular exercise, non-exercise, or illegal assumption of jurisdiction - It is not directed against conclusions of law or fact where questions of jurisdiction are not involved (Para 3).
(B) Finding of fact - A finding on a question of fact will be defective in law if there is no evidence to support that finding or if in reaching that finding the lower court misdirects itself in law (Para 3).
Facts of the case:
A tenant was sued for eviction on the grounds of rent default and unlawful subletting. The trial court granted a decree for eviction, which was subsequently reversed by the first appellate court on the finding that there was no proof of subletting. The High Court, in a civil revision application, overturned the appellate court's decision and granted the decree for eviction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interfering with a finding of fact regarding whether the premises were sublet, as no evidence of perversity or misdirection in law was established.
Issues: Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has the authority to upset a finding of fact recorded by a subordinate court.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly limited to jurisdictional errors and does not extend to the re-evaluation of findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, meaning they are unsupported by evidence or the result of a legal misdirection.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could interfere with a subordinate court's finding of fact regarding subletting under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )
3. Section 115 CPC pertains to jurisdictional errors and does not permit the High Court to question findings of fact unless they are perverse or legally misdirected. (Para 3 )
4. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to questions of jurisdiction and does not extend to findings of fact unless no evidence exists or law is misdirected. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside and subordinate court's judgment restoring tenancy restored. (Para 4 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
It applies only to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, specifically the irregular exercise, non-exercise, or illegal assumption of jurisdiction, and is not directed against conclusions of law or fact where jurisdictional questions are not involved. (Para 3 )
7. Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a subordinate court's finding of fact during a revision?
A finding on a question of fact may be considered defective in law if there is no evidence to support that finding or if the lower court misdirects itself in law. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramaswami, J.
This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated the 16th December, 1965 in civil revision application No. 1168 of 1963.
2. This appellant was occupying three rooms in house No. 265, Sadasivpeth, Poona as a monthly tenant or respondent No. 1 on a rent of Rs. 14/- p.m. The respondent No. 1 brought the present suit on the ground that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent and that he had unlawfully sublet the premises and therefore granted a decree to respondent No. 1 for the eviction of the appellant. In an appeal filed by the appellant the Extra Assistant Judge held that the appellant was charging rent from the respondent No. 2 and so there was no proof that the premises were sublet to respondent No. 2. The Extra Assistant Judge therefore reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 preferred Civil Revision Application to the High Court. The High Court allowed the application and granted a decree to respondent No. 1 for eviction of the appellant from the demised premises.
3. After hearing the council for the parties we are satisfied that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge in the present case. It is well established that it is not open to the High Court to question findings of fact recorded be a subordinate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . That section applies only to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, that is, regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusions of law or of fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. The question involved in the present case namely whether the appellant had sublet the garage to respondent No. 2 as alleged by the respondent No. 1 is essentially a question of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to upset that finding. It is of course true that a finding on a question of fact will be detective in law if there is no evidence to support that finding or if in reaching that finding the lower court misdirects itself in law. It is, however, not argued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the finding of the lower court on the question of subletting initiated for these reasons.
4. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 16th December, 1965 in Civil Revision Application No. 1168 of 1963 and restore the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge dated the 27th March, 1963 in Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1963. We direct respondent No. 1 to pay half the costs of the appellant in this court.
Appeal allowed.
