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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more