Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
Dr.Nemani Suryanarayana - Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Wilfred Kolady Rabindranadth and Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1956 of 2019
Decided On : 12-03-2020
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1990 – Section 22 - Landlord-tenant relationship – Revision petitioner before this Court is an unsuccessful tenant against whom two concurrent orders were passed in R.C.C.- Both the cases in the lower Courts went against tenant and in favour of the landlord. The tenant was directed to evict and handover the premises. Questioning the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under – Held, PW.1 (GPA holder) cannot depose about this state of facts as his GPA was executed long after the incidents had occurred. Therefore, the landlords-respondents in this case have failed to prove that there is a “willful” default viz., a default that is deliberate / contemptuous with the knowledge of the consequences. In the opinion of this Court is, this is an issue of the state of mind of the respondent which has to be necessarily proved by examining a witness, who was personally aware of the facts. The GPA holder who was examined as PW 1 does not fit into this description. He is not a proper witness. He is not capable of giving evidence about the mental state of the tenant in defaulting the rents – There is no admission by the landlord of a willful default which would also enable the landlord-respondents to seek a decree. The cross-examination of the witness for the tenant-revision petitioner does not contain any admission which would entitle the landlord for a decree. In fact, in the ultimate analysis the trial Court granted a decree on the ground that the 1st respondent failed to prove the payment of rents in a few months in 2010, 2012, 2013 – Civil Revision Petition is allowed
Facts of the Case:
Respondents-landlord argued that since there are two concurrent findings of fact, this Court must not interfere in the same. Relying upon the well known judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v Dilbahar Singh (2014) 0 AIR (SC) 3708, learned counsel for the respondents drew the distinction between the revisional power of a Court and the appellate power of the Court. It is his contention that this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the 1st Court or the 1st Appellate Court, because its view may be different on the reappreciation of the evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this Court should not sift through the evidence and come to a different conclusion since the reconsideration of questions of fact is not available to the High Court while exercising revision under Section 22 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
PW.1 (GPA holder) cannot depose about this state of facts as his GPA was executed long after the incidents had occurred. Therefore, the landlords-respondents in this case have failed to prove that there is a “willful” default viz., a default that is deliberate / contemptuous with the knowledge of the consequences. In the opinion of this Court is, this is an issue of the state of mind of the respondent which has to be necessarily proved by examining a witness, who was personally aware of the facts. The GPA holder who was examined as PW 1 does not fit into this description. He is not a proper witness. He is not capable of giving evidence about the mental state of the tenant in defaulting the rents – There is no admission by the landlord of a willful default which would also enable the landlord-respondents to seek a decree. The cross-examination of the witness for the tenant-revision petitioner does not contain any admission which would entitle the landlord for a decree. In fact, in the ultimate analysis the trial Court granted a decree on the ground that the 1st respondent failed to prove the payment of rents in a few months in 2010, 2012, 2013
Result: Civil Revision Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. The revision petitioner before this Court is an unsuccessful tenant against whom two concurrent orders were passed in R.C.C.No.13 of 2014, dated 11.08.2017, passed by the learned Special Officer Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and in R.C.A.No.8 of 2017, dated 07.06.2019, passed by the learned Rent Appellate Controller-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada respectively. Both the cases in the lower Courts went against tenant and in favour of the landlord. The tenant was directed to evict and handover the premises. Questioning the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1990 (in short “the Act”).
2. This Court has heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth representing Indus Law Firm for the revision petitioner and Sri S. Subba Reddy representing the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts and parties are referred to as arrayed in the Civil Revision Petition.
4. The landlord-tenant relationship etc., are not really in doubt. The essential questions that arise for consideration are –
(a) Whether the landlord was successful in proving the case in order to get an order of eviction against the tenant?
(b) Whether this Court in exercise of its revisional powers can re-examine the concurrent findings of fact by which two Courts hold that the tenant-present revision petitioner was liable to be evicted?
5. This Court is proposing to answer question “b” first.
6. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents-landlord argued that since there are two concurrent findings of fact, this Court must not interfere in the same. Relying upon the well known judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v Dilbahar Singh (2014) 0 AIR (SC) 3708, learned counsel for the respondents drew the distinction between the revisional power of a Court and the appellate power of the Court. It is his contention that this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by the 1st Court or the 1st Appellate Court, because its view may be different on the reappreciation of the evidence. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this Court should not sift through the evidence and come to a different conclusion since the reconsideration of questions of fact is not available to the High Court while exercising revision under Section 22 of the Act.
7. This position of law does not really admit of any doubt. However, Section 22 of the Act would read literally as follows:
“22. Revision:. -(1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or of propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the High Court under sub-section (1), shall be in its discretion.”
8. Relying upon the literal language of the Section, learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the revision Court has the power to satisfy itself as to the “legality, regularity or propriety” of an order or proceedings. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that in this case there are serious issues about the legality and the propriety of the order. He also draws the attention of this Court to the penultimate paragraph of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein it is held as follows:
“45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court / A
SupremeToday
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
