1988 Supreme(Raj) 725

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, J.
Shanti Chander Bairathi - Appellant
Versus
Shah Patni & Co. and anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 492 of 1987. (Against order passed by ADJ No. 4, Jaipur City on 16-4-87 in CMA No. 28/85.).
Decided On : 23-08-1988

An order passed by a trial court under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is appealable under Section 22(1) of the Act.

Headnote:

RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 13(3), 13(4), 13(5), 22 - APPEAL - ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 13(5) - MAINTAINABILITY - ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 13(5) IS APPEALABLE UNDER SECTION 22(1) OF THE ACT - ORDER 41 RULE 27 C.P.C. - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CERTIFIED COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS - ADMISSIBILITY - BANKERS' BOOKS EVIDENCE ACT, 1894 - SECTION 2(8) - CERTIFICATION BY ASSISTANT MANAGER/BRANCH MANAGER - VALIDITY - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE IN REVISION - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendants on the ground of default in the payment of rent for more than six months and sub-letting. The trial court determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Act and the arrears of rent were paid within 15 days. The plaintiff submitted an application under Section 13(5) of the Act alleging that the defendants had not paid the rent from June 1980 to July 1982. The defendants submitted a reply and an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to allow them to lead secondary evidence with regard to the receipts. The trial court dismissed the application and struck out the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case back for granting an opportunity to the defendants to prove the payment of rent by other evidence. The defendants examined witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The trial court again struck out the defence against eviction. The defendants filed an appeal and also submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held that the defendants had proved the payment of rent. The plaintiff filed a revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order passed by the trial court under Section 13(5) of the Act is appealable under Section 22(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellate Court did not commit any error in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. 3. The certified copies of the bank accounts were admissible in evidence as they were certified by the Assistant Manager/Branch Manager of the bank. 4. The finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on merits regarding the payment of rent cannot be challenged in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. 5. There was no error of jurisdiction committed by the Appellate Court in recording the finding in favour of the defendants.

Issues: 1. Whether the order passed by the trial court under Section 13(5) of the Act is appealable under Section 22(1) of the Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Court committed any error in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.? 3. Whether the certified copies of the bank accounts were admissible in evidence? 4. Whether the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on merits regarding the payment of rent can be challenged in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court? 5. Whether there was any error of jurisdiction committed by the Appellate Court in recording the finding in favour of the defendants?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 22(1) of the Act provides for an appeal from every decree or order passed by a court under the Act. The order passed under Section 13(5) of the Act is an order passed by a court under the Act and is, therefore, appealable under Section 22(1) of the Act. 2. The Appellate Court did not commit any error in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. as the defendants had already produced the documents before the trial court and the trial court had not placed reliance on them on the ground that they were not certified according to the Bankers' Book Evidence Act. The defendants filed certified copies of the documents before the Appellate Court and the plaintiff did not raise any objection. 3. The certified copies of the bank accounts were admissible in evidence as they were certified by the Assistant Manager/Branch Manager of the bank, who was the principal officer of the bank and was competent to certify the accounts. 4. The finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court on merits regarding the payment of rent cannot be challenged in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court can only interfere if there is any error of jurisdiction committed by the Appellate Court. 5. There was no error of jurisdiction committed by the Appellate Court in recording the finding in favour of the defendants as the Appellate Court had considered all the circumstances in detail and was not agreeable with the view taken by the trial court.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.