Revisional jurisdiction and subsequent events: later physical deterioration and a Commissioner's report may justify interference with factual findings.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is broader than Section 115 CPC, but it is not appellate power and does not allow routine reappraisal of evidence or disturbance of concurrent findings of fact except for perversity, illegality, impropriety, or no-evidence errors. The High Court may also consider relevant subsequent events and admit a local Commissioner's report on the present physical condition of the premises where those later facts directly affect whether the accommodation is fit for human habitation. On that basis, the report of deterioration was treated as admissible and the interference with the finding on fitness was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by reappraising evidence and reversing the appellate court's finding on the fitness of the shop for human habitation. (ii) Whether the High Court could permit and rely upon a local Commissioner's report based on subsequent deterioration of the premises while deciding the revision.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by reappraising evidence and reversing the appellate court's finding on the fitness of the shop for human habitation.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 15(5) is wider than the limited jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is still not equivalent to appellate power. It authorises examination of the legality or propriety of the order under challenge, yet does not permit the High Court to act as a third appellate court or to disturb findings of fact by simple reappraisal of evidence. Where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by material illegality or impropriety, interference may be justified. In the present matter, the High Court did not act merely by substituting its own view on the existing evidence; it considered fresh material legally brought on record concerning the later condition of the shop.

Conclusion: The High Court did not exceed its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the appellate court's finding on the condition of the shop.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could permit and rely upon a local Commissioner's report based on subsequent deterioration of the premises while deciding the revision.

Analysis: Courts may take cautious cognisance of subsequent events having a material bearing on the relief or the issue in dispute, provided fairness to both sides is preserved and the material is relevant to the decision. A local Commissioner may properly be appointed to report the existing physical condition of the premises when such later facts bear directly on the issue whether the accommodation is fit for human habitation. The Commissioner's function is to report the present condition, not to determine who caused the damage. In the present case, after a long pendency of the revision, the application disclosed further deterioration of the shop, and the report described serious structural defects, including a hole in the roof and cracks in the walls. The report was therefore relevant and could be acted upon in revision.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in allowing the local Commissioner's report to be brought on record and in relying upon it.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the High Court's interference was supported by legally relevant subsequent material and did not amount to an impermissible exercise of revisional power; the finding that the shop was unfit for human habitation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional proceedings, the High Court may consider subsequent events having a direct bearing on the relief or issue in dispute, and may rely on a duly admitted Commissioner's report of the later physical condition of the premises, but it cannot ordinarily reappraise evidence to upset findings of fact unless the impugned order suffers from illegality, impropriety, or perversity.

---