Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 188
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Kabul Singh
Versus
Gurinder Singh
Civil Revision No. 3160 of 1998,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 16, 1999
The High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, if the findings are erroneous, absurd, or based on irrelevant evidence.
Headnote:
EVICTION - RENT ARREARS - LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF ORDER - REVISION JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949, SECTION 15(5) - RELEVANT EVIDENCE IGNORED - IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE CONSIDERED - FINDINGS ERRONEOUS - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a tenant, challenged the eviction order passed against him by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority on the ground of rent arrears. The petitioner claimed to have paid the rent up to July 1982, producing a receipt as evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the authorities below erred in considering irrelevant evidence and ignoring relevant evidence in reaching their findings. The Expert's opinion on the disputed receipt was beyond the scope of the reference and should have been ignored. The respondent-landlord's evasive statement regarding the execution of the receipt and his failure to produce accounts further weakened his case.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949? 2. Whether the findings of the authorities below were erroneous due to consideration of irrelevant evidence and ignoring relevant evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has the power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 15(5) of the Act to ensure the legality and propriety of the order. If the findings are erroneous, absurd, or based on irrelevant evidence, the High Court can intervene. 2. The findings of the authorities below were erroneous because they considered irrelevant evidence (Expert's opinion beyond the scope of reference) and ignored relevant evidence (petitioner's receipt, respondent's evasive statement, and failure to produce accounts).
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders, and dismissed the eviction application.
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
1. Kabul Singh has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 17.7.1985 and that the Appellate Authority dated 8.11.1988 respectively. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The sole ground of eviction taken by the respondent-landlord was that petitioner is a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- excluding water, electricity charges and house tax. The rent was payable in advance on the first date of each month. The petitioner was pleaded to be in arrears of rent from 1.9.1981. The other ground of eviction that there has been change of user does not survive for consideration. In the written statement filed, the petitioner denied that arrears of rent were due. The petitioners case is that off and on the landlord had been issuing the receipts. The rent has been paid upto the end of July, 1982. A receipt was issued dated 10.7.1982.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and concluded that arrears of rent were due. The same had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and an order of eviction was passed. An appeal was filed against the said order of the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority did not accept the rent receipt which was set up by the petitioner and relying on the report of the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert Shri K.N. Parshad from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh held that it was not a genuine document. The order of the learned Rent Controller was approved. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that there are concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, this Court would not be justified in re-appraising the evidence.
5. In this regard reference can well be made to sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh it reads:-
"15(5) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit."
It is abundantly clear from perusal of the same that High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can only interfere taking note of the legality and propriety of the order.
6 This question as to when the High Court would interfere had more often than once been considered by this Court and the Supreme Court. Reference to some of those judgments can well be made. In the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and Anr., 1985(2) Rent Law Reporter 557 this Court held that even when there are concurrent findings of fact, the High Court would be competent to find out the propriety of the order. If the inferences drawn by the authorities are not warranted and certain facts have been overlooked, the revisional Court should go into those facts and upset those findings. In the case of A. Khan Mohammed v. P. Narayanan Nambiar and Ors., 1987(2) Rent Law Reporter 386 a decision under the Tamil Nadu Building and (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 a similar view was expressed that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction will interfere if there are material omissions and inadmissible evidence has been considered. In paragraph 4 it was held:-
"A revisional authority can interfere with a finding of fact also if there is no other material on which such a finding could be based or, the finding has been reached by a consideration of irrelevant or inadmissible matter, or it is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion or the finding has been reached by an erroneous under standing of the law applicable to the particular matter."
Similarly in th
