Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in a revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact, including the finding on the landlord's bona fide requirement, and whether such jurisdiction was wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal.
Analysis: Section 23 provides a right of appeal from the Controller, while Section 25 empowers the High Court to examine the record of the appellate authority to satisfy itself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the decision. Although the language of Section 25 is wide, the presence of both appeal and revision in the statute indicates that revision is narrower than appeal and is essentially a supervisory power. The High Court is not entitled to reappraise evidence merely because it disagrees with the subordinate authorities. A finding based on evidence that the landlord did not bona fide require the premises for his own use and occupation could not be disturbed in revision merely on the footing that the issue involved a mixed question of fact and law, unless there was a clear taint causing miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact; the interference was unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is supervisory and not appellate, and it does not authorise interference with concurrent findings of fact absent legal infirmity or miscarriage of justice.