Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
M/s Bani Prakash Pvt Ltd & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
On the death of Hiranya Kr. Das His Legal Heirs and Representatives Smti Rina Das, W/o. Lt. Hiranya Kr. Das & Ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 62 of 2019, CRP No. 442 of 2015, I.A.(Civil) No. 1088 of 2019
Decided On : 28-04-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Goswami.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.C. Sarma.
Point of Law : words “illegally” and “material irregularity” do not cover either errors of fact or law. They do not refer to decision arrive at but to the matter in which it is reached.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Section 8 - Second appeal - Power of superintendence over all courts by High Court - words “illegally” and “material irregularity” do not cover either errors of fact or law. They do not refer to decision arrive at but to the matter in which it is reached. (Para 17).
Finding of the Court :
It is a settled position of law words “illegally” and “material irregularity” do not cover either errors of fact or law - They do not refer to decision arrive at but to matter in which it is reached - Errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not errors of either law or facts after formalities which law prescribed having been complied with - Court as well as learned first appellant court has correctly arrived at a finding against present petitioner - There are no procedural errors in judgments of court below in order to warrant exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India or under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure - This court under these powers does not interfere with findings of fact by courts below - Both courts have acted within its jurisdiction vested by law - There is no procedural errors and perversity in judgments of courts below.
Result : Revision petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Hear Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.
2. This is a common judgment for both the cases.
3. Late Jugal Chandra Das was the owner of the plot of land measuring 18 Laches covered by dag No. 112 of KP Patta No. 156 of village, part IV, Guwahati under Ulubari mouza. The plot of land had a building standing thereon. On 28.09.1998, the land as well as the building was gifted by Lt. Jugal Chandra Das to his son Lt. Hiranya Das.
4. Since the days of Lt. Jugal Chandra Das the petitioner/appellant was a tenant in respect of the said building. In the meantime Lt. Hiranya Das had got the land records corrected.
5. Lt. Hiranya Das issued a notice to the appellant/petitioner on 11.01.1996 asking him to vacate the building. Lt. Hiranya Das pleaded because of acute financial hardship he wanted to start a business to mitigate his hardship. Even the children of Lt. Hiranya Das also wanted to start their business and therefore, the suit premises was required.
6. Finally, Lt. Hiranya Das filed the suit praying for vacant position of the property.
7. The present appellant/petitioner contested the by filing a written statement. It denied that it was a defaulter in payment of rent. The appellant/petitioner pleaded that after the death of Lt. Jugal Chandra Das his widow Smti. Nomita Das used to receive the house rent and at one point of time when she refused to accept the house rent, the same was handed over to her son Lt. Hiranya Das.
8. The appellant/petitioner had pleaded that with the permission of Lt. Jugal Chandra Das it had reconstructed and renovated the old house by spending Rs.78,908/-. It was further pleaded that on the northern part of staircase of the house and extension was made by incurring an expense of Rs.72,692/-. Thereafter, the extension of balcony and the first floor was also done by the appellant/petitioner by incurring an expense of Rs.1,87,361/-.
9. It has been pleaded by the appellant/petitioner that Lt. Jugal Chandra Das had adjusted the aforesaid amounts of money with the monthly house rent. But at the time of filing of the suit Rs.2,60,054/- was yet to be adjusted. It means this money was due to the appellant/petitioner from Lt. Hiranya Das.
10. From the pleadings of the parties it is not clear that the tenancy is admitted by the appellant/petitioner. Therefore, it is a case between a tenant and a landlord in respect of a building given on rent to the appellant/petitioner.
11. In the State of Assam the relationship between a tenant and a landlord in respect of a house is governed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Section 8 of the Act of 1972, prohibits filing a second appeal in the High Court. Therefore, the present regular second appeal is not maintainable in law and stands dismissed accordingly.
12. Now I shall take a brief revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as under :-
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may-
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in
