Gain Chand vs Nanak Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Gain Chand petitioner directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 20.8.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and instead passed an order or eviction against the petitioner.

The relevant facts are that petitioner Gain Chand was a tenant in the suit premises. The respondent filed an eviction petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short ''the Act'') for eviction of the petitioner from the suit property. The sole ground that finally found favour with the learned Appellate Authority . was that as per the respondent, the petitioner kept the premises looked for the past 8 months. The petitioner had contested the said ground and denied the assertions so made. The learned Rent Controller on appraisal of the facts concluded that the respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner has kept locked the suit premises for 8 months as alleged by the respondent. The respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority on appraisal of the facts had upset the findings of the Rent Controller and instead passed '' an order of eviction holding that the petitioner has kept the suit premises locked for 8 months before filing of the petition. Hence, the present revision petition.

When the petition for eviction was listed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the respondent.

The short question that immediately strikes is as to whether this Court is competent to set aside the findings arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority or not. It is a finding of fact as to whether the petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises for a period of 8 months or in other words kept it locked before filing of the present petition for the said period. The Appellate Authority is a final Court of fact. This Court would only interfere if the findings are absurd, not based on evidence and there is misreading of evidence. If no reasonable person comes to such a conclusion, only in that event, this court would interfere.

The Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur 1987(2) RLR 660 considered the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act and held:-

"In so far as this finding is concerned, the High Court has refused to give any weight or credence to it, even though it was a concurrent one. In our view, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, even though it is a finding of fact, because both the authorities have based their findings on conjectures and surmises and secondly because they have lost sight of relevant pieces of evidence which have not been controverted. The evidence of the respondent and her son, which has not been challenged is that the Government Quarters consists of only one bedrooms one store, one Kitchen and a small dinning room and nothing more. Strangely enough the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have proceeded on the assumption that the Government Quarters consists of three bedrooms and hence there was enough accommodation for the entire family. It is, therefore, obvious that they have based their findings on imaginary material and not facts."

Similarly in the case Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mital (1986)89 P.L.R. 275 (S.C.) the same question was considered and it was held:-

"It cannot be disputed that the powers of the High Court u/s 15(5) of the Act are wide and not confined merely to examining the legality of the appellate authority''s order nor are those powers akin to the revisional powers of the High Court u/s 115 of the C.P.C. Sub-section(5) of Section 15 of the Act in so far as is material states :" The High Court may...........on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion call for and examine the records relating to any order........for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order.....and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit." We find that at two places in its judgment the High Court has categorically observed that it was not open to it to reappraise the evidence unless the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority suffered from some legal infirmity and further that even if it were to come to a different conclusion - of course properly and reasonable- it would not be open to it to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority on reappraisal of the evidence."

No different has been the view expressed more recently in the case of Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh (1995)111 P.L.R. 276 (S.C). The Supreme Court while construing the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 concluded :-

"The Act, however, under sub-section (6) of section 15 makes a provision for revision to the High Court against any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act. Thus, the legislature has provided for a single appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and no further appeal has been provided under the Act. The Legislature has, however, made a provision for discretionary remedy or revision which is indicative of the fact that the Legislature has created two jurisdictions different from each other in scope and content in the form of an appeal and revision. That being so the two jurisdictions-one under an appeal and the other under revision cannot be said to be one and the same but distinct and different in the ambit and scope. Precisely stated, an appeal is a continuation of a suit or proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, or course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and re-appreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. The limitation is implicit in the concept or revision."

Even in the case of Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, the Supreme Court concluded that ordinarily in the revision petition u/s 15(5) of the Act, the High Court will not upset the findings of fact when they are based on evidence.

The position herein is identical. The petitioner had filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. The learned Appellate Authority found that electricity bills that the petitioner wanted to produce relate to Gurmukh Dyeing Factory. It was not the ease of the petitioner that he was running the aforesaid business. The learned Appellate Authority scanned through the evidence and held that it cannot be believed that petitioner has neither the accounts books nor the electricity bills to show that he was still running the grocery shop or the flour mill. The said findings cannot be described to be absurd. Therefore, there is no ground For interference.

For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the premises.