Jurisdictional fact in rent control suits can justify revision when an erroneous finding affects maintainability under section 115 CPC.

Where maintainability of a landlord's suit for fixation of rent depends on a preliminary jurisdictional fact, an erroneous finding on that fact may amount to assumption of jurisdiction not vested in the subordinate court. The statutory scheme made the suit maintainable only if the accommodation fell within the post-30 June 1946 category under the rent control law. Because the trial court's finding on the date of construction affected its power to entertain the suit, revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available. The High Court's interference in revision and setting aside of the decree was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the trial court had decided the date of construction of the accommodation as a jurisdictional fact affecting maintainability under the rent control statute.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made the landlord's suit for fixation of rent maintainable only where the accommodation fell within the class for which rent could be determined under section 3-A of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The court's power to entertain the suit therefore depended on the existence of a preliminary fact, namely whether the accommodation was constructed after 30 June 1946. If that fact was wrongly decided, the subordinate court would be exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it, because the landlord could not sue to enhance the agreed rent unless the accommodation was shown to be of the relevant post-1946 category. The revisional power under section 115 extended to cases where a subordinate court, by an erroneous decision on such a jurisdictional fact, assumed jurisdiction it did not possess.

Conclusion: The High Court was entitled to interfere in revision, and its decision setting aside the trial court's decree was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the subordinate court's erroneous finding on the date of construction affected its jurisdiction to entertain the suit, bringing the case within the High Court's revisional powers.

Ratio Decidendi: Where maintainability depends on a preliminary jurisdictional fact, an erroneous finding on that fact by a subordinate court may amount to assumption of jurisdiction not vested in it and is correctable in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---