Skip to main content

Pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence not to be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction

In Trilok Singh Chauhan Vs. Ram Lal (dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors, appeal was been filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of High Court by which judgment High Court has allowed the Revision and set aside the order passed by trial Court directing the eviction of the Respondent-tenant with recovery of rent and damages. High Court also made observation against the landlord that the motive of landlord is to secure the possession back and profit hunting. Appellant submits that, the High Court committed error in upsetting the findings of fact regarding rate of rent which was held by the trial Court as Rs. 1500/- per month but reversed by the High Court holding it to be Rs. 250/- per month only. The landlord aggrieved by the judgment has come up in this appeal.

In Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani (Smt.) and Anr., Present Court held that, jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is wider than the Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act. The Court also explained the circumstances under which, findings can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act. There are very limited grounds on which there can be interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act; they are, when (i) Findings are perverse or (ii) based on no material or (iii) Findings have been arrived at upon taking into consideration the inadmissible evidences or (iv) Findings have been arrived at without consideration of relevant evidences.

Present is not a case where High Court set aside the finding of the Trial Court on any of above grounds where Revisional Court under Section 25 of Act can interfere. High Court has not even referred to the reasons given by the trial Court while coming to the conclusion that, the rate of rent is Rs. 1500/- per month. Supreme Court is of the view that, judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.

Tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated eviction of the tenant. There is no question of the waiver of eviction. Thus, the landlord was clearly insisting on termination of the tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of action of not handing over of the possession. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that, there was any waiver of relief of eviction either on notice or in the suit. Formal prayer has already been added in the plaint seeking possession of shop after eviction which amendment was allowed by the High Court in its judgment dated 05th August, 2008. High Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment and decree of trial Court. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and decree passed by trial Court is restored. The appeal is allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more