Back
1999 Supreme(Guj) 62
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.C.Srivastava
KARSANDAS GORDHANDAS PARMAR - Appellant
Versus
BAHADURSINGH MADHURSINGH DODIA - Respondent
Civil Revision 1545 of 1998
Decided On : 02/19/1999
Headnote:(a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sec. 115 - Revision - Scope of - High Court cannot substitute its own finding of fact for findings recorded by the Courts below after reappraisal of evidence.
The right to Appeal carries with it the right of hearing both on questions of law and fact unless the statute conferring the right to Appeal itself restricts the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear revision is generally given to a particular case which is decided according to law. It was further laid down that the High Court can not substitute its own finding on the question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below after reappraisal of evidence.
[Para 8]
Such interference on concurrent findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are found to be perverse. The finding is said to be perverse when it is based upon inadmissible evidence or it is based upon misreading of evidence or it is the result of mis-appreciation of evidence to the extent that no reasonable man from the evidence on record could have taken such a view.
[Para 9]
(b) Bombay Rent Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sec. 29(2) - Eviction - Reasonable & bonafide requirement - Contention that decree for eviction is passed on ground of bonafide requirement of landlord but no such ground existed on the date of institution of suit has no force - It can not be said that suit was premature - Suit for eviction is not based on sole ground of requirement of landlord - There were other grounds as well and hence whole of the suit cannot be held to have been filed without cause of action on the date of filing the suit.
It was not a suit for eviction of the tenant only on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation for use of the landlord and his family members. There were other grounds on which eviction of the revisionist was sought and those grounds have been indicated in the fore-going portion of this judgment. Since the suit for eviction was filed on more than one grounds it cannot be said that all the grounds did not exist on the date of institution of the Suit. If those grounds could not be substantiated by the landlord it cannot be said that the cause of action to file the suit for eviction on those grounds did not accrue to the landlord when he filed Suit for eviction. Cause of action consists of bundle of facts upon which the plaintiff is entitled to bring an action in the form of a Suit against his adversery, viz., the defendant. Cause of action is not confined to single isolated fact. When eviction is sought on more than one ground it cannot be said that the suit as a whole was pre-mature and was liable to be dismissed. Failure of the plaintiff in substantiating other grounds for eviction cannot be a ground for observing that the entire suit was pre-mature and cause of action for such suit did not accrue to the plaintiff respondent on the date of the suit.
[Para 10]
(c) Bombay Rent Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Sec. 29 (2) - Eviction - Reasonable & bonafide requirement arising after suit - Not fatal in the facts of the case - Land lord needed accommodation after his retirement on 26.11.1994 as disclosed in plaint itself - Simply because suit was filed in year 1990, it cannot be said that cause of action for eviction did not accrue to landlord on date of filing the suit - Court can in such matters take into consideration the subsequent events happening during pendency of suit or during appeal thereafter - Amendment to that effect can also be allowed.
Even if it is accepted technically that on the date of the suit the landlord was in service it cannot be said that subsequent events could not be taken into consideration by the two Courts below as well as by the Revisional Court. Consideration of subsequent events by the Courts is a settled proposition of law. This settled proposition is to the effect that if certain events take place during pendency of the suit the Trial Court can take the same into consideration. Likewise if such events take place during pendency of the appeal the Appellate Court can look into it and if such events take place during pendency of the revision the Revisional Court can also consider such subsequent events and can mould and grant relief keeping in view these subsequent events. Amendment of pleadings on account of accrual of subsequent events during pendency of the proceeding has also been permitted.
[Para 15]
( 1 ) THESE two cases are proposed to be disposed of by a common Judgment.
( 2 ) IN the Civil Application the prayer is that in view of subsequent events occurring during pendency of the eviction suit the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court be set aside.
( 3 ) CIVIL Revision Application has been filed by the revisionists who are the legal representatives of the deceased tenant under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act" ).
( 4 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are as under : the suit premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 200. 00 per month besides Rs. 80. 00 p. m. towards municipal taxes. It was let out for a short period of six months and after expiry of the said period the defendant was required to vacate the premises. It was not vacated, hence the allegation was that the tenant committed breach of the terms of tenancy. There was another ground for eviction that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent which he did not pay. Another ground was that the tenant had caused damage to the doors, windows and decoration of the suit premises and made permanent changes in the suit premises. Eviction was also sought on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the landlord and his family members. Another ground was that the defendant had built a bungalow and thus acquired alternative accommodation suitable for his residence.
( 5 ) THE Suit was contested denying all these allegations. Standard rent was also disputed. It was denied that alternative accommodation has been acquired by the defendant tenant. The said accommodation is still incomplete and is not fit for residence.
( 6 ) THE suit was decreed by the trial Court. An Appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Appellate Court, hence this revision.
( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist pressed the following points in this revision :i) That the decree was passed on ground of reasonable and bonafide personal requirement of the landlord, but this ground did not exist on the date of institution of the Suit, hence the Suit was pre-mature and it could not be decreed on ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the landlord;ii) That the courts below failed to consider that the decree for eviction from portion of the tenanted accommodation could have served the purpose of the landlord;iii) That comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant in the event decree for eviction was passed was also not properly appreciated by the two courts below;
( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that it is a case where the two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts, hence the revisional court can not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings over the findings of the two courts below. It was argued that the findings of the two courts below do not suffer from any manifest error of law or misappreciation of evidence on record, hence under these circumstances revisional interference is not required. The Apex Court in Patel Valmik v/s. Patel Mohanlal, reported in 1999 (1) GLR 15 considered the scope and ambit of Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. Considering the earlier decision in Girdharbhai v/s. Saiyed Mohmed, 1987 (2) GLR 960 (SC) and Catena of decisions it was held that the right to Appeal carries with it the right of hearing both on questions of law and fact unless the statute conferring the right to Appeal itself restricts the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear revision is generally given to a particular case which is decided according to law. It was further laid down that the High Court can not substitute its own finding on the question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below after reappraisal of evidence. In view of this Apex Courts pronouncement I do not think it necessary to refer in detail the pronouncement of this Court in Santokbhai v/s. Ramdas reporte
