TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the meaning, ambit and scope of the words "legality and propriety" under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Haryana Rent Control Act'), was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Rukmini 1 in support of its contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On the other hand, the respondent pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass2 wherein it has been held that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court. The 2-Judge Bench felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its resolution referred the matter to the larger Bench. In the Reference Order (dated August 27, 2009), the 2-Judge Bench observed, thus: "Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rukmini Amma Saradamma Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot similar to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court in the matters arising from the Courts governed by the Code. 4. Section 15 of the Haryana Rent Control Act provides for appellate and revisional authorities. This provision in the Haryana Rent Control Act reads as under: "15. Appellate and revisional authorities.-(1) The State Government may, by a general or special order, by notification, confer on such officers and authorities as it may think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order or such longer period as the appellate authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. In computing the period of thirty days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. (3) On such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this sub-section." 6. The provision for appeal is contained in the Kerala Rent Control Act in Section 18 while Section 20 of that Act deals with the revisional jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act reads as under: "20. (1) In cases where the appellate authority empowered under section 18 is a Subordinate judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion." 7. A careful reading of the text of the above three provisions will show that under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Rent Control Act, the High Court as revisional authority, may suo motu or on the application of an aggrieved party, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 3- Judge Bench of this Court in Moti Ram3 had an occasion to consider the extent of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949) which reads: "... The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit." Having regard to this provision, the Court noted the revisional power of the High Court in the following words: "...the revisional power conferred upon the High Court under Section 15(5) is wider than that conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 15(5) the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the propriety or the legality of the finding made by the authorities..." 10. Before we refer to the other cases of this Court, we feel that the weighty observations made by the 2-Judge B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidered in each case with reference to the language employed by the statute." While dealing with revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the Court said in paragraph 3 (page 262 of the Report) as under: "The language of Section 25 is indeed very wide. But we must attach some significance to the circumstance that both the expressions 'appeal' and 'revision' are employed in the statute. Quite obviously, the expression 'revision' is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression 'appeal'. In fact it has to be noticed that under Section 25 the High Court calls for and examines the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself. The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words 'to satisfy itself' under Section 25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional court is not "a second court of first appeal" (emphasis supplied by us) 14. In Rukmini1, the scope of revisional power under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act fell for consideration before a 3-Judge Bench. The Bench considered the provision of Section 20 of that Act, vis-à-vis, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held as under: "As far as the present Act is concerned Section 20 contains the word "propriety" also. As to the meaning of the word "propriety" in Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras (1956 SCR 256) at page 264 it was held thus: "The word 'propriety' has nowhere been defined in the Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. In the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated to mean 'fitness; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or conditions; conformity with requirements, rule or principle; rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy'." Therefore, the question would be whether in the context of this provision the High Court was right in reappreciating the evidence and coming to a dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional court is not 'a second court of first appeal..." 15. In Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675], the Court had an occasion to consider the scope of powers of revisional Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. The 2-Judge Bench which heard the matter observed that it was improper for the High Court to consider the revision petition under Section 25 as if it were a second appeal. The Court firmly stated that the findings of the first appellate Court could not be reversed upon a reassessment of the evidence. 16. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; [(1999) 6 SCC 222], this Court with reference to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, though reiterated that the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts, but also held that the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of "wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed or proceeding taken by (the Court of Small Causes or the Court of the Civil Judge) under this Act or any order passed by the Controller under Sections 14, 15, 16 or 17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit." The Court, while observing that revisional power cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal, held that still the nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 50 of the Act will have to be considered in the light of the express provisions of the statute concerning such power. On the express language of Section 50(1) of the Act, the Court observed that it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of correctness of findings of fact reached by the Court of Small Causes on relevant evidence. The Court considered a couple of decisions of this Court, (1) Central Tobacco Company Central Tobacco Company v. Chandra Prakash; [1969 UJ 432] and (2) Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr.; [(1991) 1 SCC 343] and ultimately conclud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to earlier we are of the considered opinion that though the revisional power under the Rent Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the use of the expression "propriety" in Section 20, the revisional court therefore will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court in the light of the aforesaid ratio of this Court it is crystal clear that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. In the circumstances, the impugned revisional order of the High Court is wholly unsustainable and we set aside the same and the order of the appellate authority is affirmed." 20. The scope of power of revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act also fell for consideration before a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and Anr.; [(2001) 3 SCC 445], a 2-Judge Bench of this Court relied upon M.S. Zahed12 decision of this Court and held in paragraph 13 of the Report as follows: "13. On a plain reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court under that section is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the regularity of the proceeding, of the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, on examination, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass such orders accordingly." 23. The scope of revisional power under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act fell for consideration in V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9 SCC 606]. The Court while allowing the appeal set aside the order of the High Court as it found that the High Court had re-appreciated the evidence to come to the conclusion different from the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The Court observed that as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iety" and "legality, regularity or propriety" which are used in three Rent Control Acts under consideration. 27. The ordinary meaning of the word 'legality' is lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal. 28. The term 'propriety' means fitness; appropriateness, aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or condition conformity with requirement; rules or principle, rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy. 29. The terms 'correctness' and 'propriety' ordinarily convey the same meaning, that is, something which is legal and proper. In its ordinary meaning and substance, 'correctness' is compounded of 'legality' and 'propriety' and that which is legal and proper is 'correct'. 30. The expression "regularity" with reference to an order ordinarily relates to the procedure being followed in accord with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 31. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment that although there is some difference in the language employed by the three Rent Control Acts under consideration which provide for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the revisional power of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sentially turns on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction. We do not think that there can ever be objection to the above statement. The controversy centers round the following observation in Ram Dass2, "...that jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also...". It is suggested that by observing so, the 3-Judge Bench in Ram Dass2 has enabled the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact by re-appreciating the evidence. We do not think that the 3-Judge Bench has gone to that extent in Ram Dass2. The observation in Ram Dass2 that as the expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is "legality and propriety", the High Court has wider jurisdiction obviously means that the power of revision vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the power conferred on it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; it is not confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is "according to law". This is expressly stated in Ram Dass2. Whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of facts and the observations following such observation that the evidence is examined by the High Court to find out whether Court/Authority below has ignored the evidence or proceeded on a wrong premise of law or derived such conclusion from the established facts which betray lack of reasons and/or objectivity which renders the finding not according to law. Shiv Sarup Gupta10 also does not lay down the proposition of law that in its revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act, the High Court can rehear on facts or re-appreciate the evidence to come to the conclusion different from that of the trial Court or the appellate Court because it has a different view on appreciation of evidence. Shiv Sarup Gupta10 must also be understood in the context we have explained Ram Dass2. 36. The observations in Ram Narain Arora11 that in examining the 'legality' or 'propriety' of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High Court could examine the facts available must be understood for the purpose stated therein, namely, in order to find out that the finding of facts are based on firm legal basis and are not given on a wrong premise of law. Ram Narain Arora11 also lays down tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enjoy an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. This view is the correct view and we approve the same. 43. The observation in Ramdoss17 that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini1 and Sankaranarayanan9. Its observation that the High Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context where such finding is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice. Ramdoss17 does not hold that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact because on reappreciation of the evidence its view is different from that of the first Appellate Court or Authority. 44. The decision of this Court in V.M. Mohan19 is again in line with the judgment of ....