Role of High Court in revision petition under Rent Control Act and Difference between Landlord-tenant litigation with title suit
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007
M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil
Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High
Court allowed the revision petition filed by the
respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated
17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998
and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed
by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C.
No. 165 of 1993.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this
appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary
to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.
3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694,
Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred
to as “suit premises” was purchased jointly by the
predecessors of the appellants herein under a
registered sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri
Yellaiah, and others, which they sold in discharge of
pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment
in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District
Court. Since the date of sale, the respondents’
predecessors continued to occupy the suit premises
and thus became the tenants of the appellants’
predecessors-in-title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- in
addition to payment of property taxes, conservancy
and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated
01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in
a book maintained by the appellants’ predecessors in
the regular course of business and was duly signed by
the respondents’ predecessors by way of rent every
month. After the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e.,
respondents’ predecessor, his four sons became the
tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate
of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are
the grand children of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who
continued to occupy the suit premises as the tenants
of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped
paying rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since
the rent was not being paid in spite of repeated
requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by the
appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which
interim reply was sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a
detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and thereafter there were
exchange of legal notices ensued between the parties.
4) Since despite service of the legal notice sent by
the appellants to the respondents demanding arrears
of rent, the respondents failed to comply with the
demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being
R.C. No. 165 of 1993 before the Principal Rent
Controller, Secunderabad against the respondents
under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”). The eviction was sought essentially on
the grounds, viz., default in payment of monthly rent
from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and
secondly denial of the appellants’ title to the suit
premises.
5) Denying the allegations made in the eviction
petition, the respondents stated that the sale deed
dated 20.07.1904 under which the ancestors of the
appellants had purchased the suit premises was a
mortgage with a right of re-conveyance whereas the
respondents’ predecessors continued to be the owners
of the suit premises. According to them, the suit
premises was offered only as a security for borrowed
amount and subsequently their forefathers discharged
the liability of borrowed amount. However, due to
some reasons, the respondents’ forefathers could not
obtain the re-conveyance of the suit premises in their
name, though ownership of suit premises remained
with the respondents’ forefathers. It was also averred
that for the last fifty years, there was no payment of
rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of
the suit premises whereas their forefathers paid the
property tax etc. as the owners. It was also averred
that the appellants fabricated the records to file an
eviction petition against the respondents.
.....
18) The Constitution Bench of this Court settled the
law relating to exercise of jurisdiction of the High
Court while deciding revision in rent matters under
the Rent Control Act in the case of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra). Justice
R.M. Lodha the learned Chief Justice speaking for the
Bench held in para 43 thus:
“43. We hold, as we must, that none of the
above Rent Control Acts entitles the High
Court to interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the first appellate court/first
appellate authority because on reappreciation
of the evidence, its view is different from the
court/authority below. The consideration or
examination of the evidence by the High
Court in revisional jurisdiction under these
Acts is confined to find out that finding of
facts recorded by the court/authority below
is according to law and does not suffer from
any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by
court/authority below, if perverse or has
been arrived at without consideration of the
material evidence or such finding is based on
no evidence or misreading of the evidence or
is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand,
it would result in gross miscarriage of justice,
is open to correction because it is not treated
as a finding according to law. In that event,
the High Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under the above Rent Control
Acts shall be entitled to set aside the
impugned order as being not legal or proper.
The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as
to the correctness or legality or propriety of
any decision or order impugned before it as
indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to
the regularity, correctness, legality or
propriety of the impugned decision or the
order, the High Court shall not exercise its
power as an appellate power to reappreciate
or reassess the evidence for coming to a
different finding on facts. Revisional power is
not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a
court of first appeal. Where the High Court is
required to be satisfied that the decision is
according to law, it may examine whether the
order impugned before it suffers from
procedural illegality or irregularity.”
19) It is also now a settled principle of law that the
concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation
governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished
from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a
relative term, the import whereof depends on the
context in which it is used. In rent control legislation,
the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is
entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from
for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant
and then to retain control, hold and use the premises
for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof
of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably
may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a
claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide Sheela & Ors.
vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC
375).
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007
M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil
Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High
Court allowed the revision petition filed by the
respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated
17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998
and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed
by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C.
No. 165 of 1993.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this
appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary
to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.
3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694,
Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred
to as “suit premises” was purchased jointly by the
predecessors of the appellants herein under a
registered sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri
Yellaiah, and others, which they sold in discharge of
pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment
in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District
Court. Since the date of sale, the respondents’
predecessors continued to occupy the suit premises
and thus became the tenants of the appellants’
predecessors-in-title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- in
addition to payment of property taxes, conservancy
and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated
01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in
a book maintained by the appellants’ predecessors in
the regular course of business and was duly signed by
the respondents’ predecessors by way of rent every
month. After the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e.,
respondents’ predecessor, his four sons became the
tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate
of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are
the grand children of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who
continued to occupy the suit premises as the tenants
of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped
paying rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since
the rent was not being paid in spite of repeated
requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by the
appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which
interim reply was sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a
detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and thereafter there were
exchange of legal notices ensued between the parties.
4) Since despite service of the legal notice sent by
the appellants to the respondents demanding arrears
of rent, the respondents failed to comply with the
demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being
R.C. No. 165 of 1993 before the Principal Rent
Controller, Secunderabad against the respondents
under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”). The eviction was sought essentially on
the grounds, viz., default in payment of monthly rent
from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and
secondly denial of the appellants’ title to the suit
premises.
5) Denying the allegations made in the eviction
petition, the respondents stated that the sale deed
dated 20.07.1904 under which the ancestors of the
appellants had purchased the suit premises was a
mortgage with a right of re-conveyance whereas the
respondents’ predecessors continued to be the owners
of the suit premises. According to them, the suit
premises was offered only as a security for borrowed
amount and subsequently their forefathers discharged
the liability of borrowed amount. However, due to
some reasons, the respondents’ forefathers could not
obtain the re-conveyance of the suit premises in their
name, though ownership of suit premises remained
with the respondents’ forefathers. It was also averred
that for the last fifty years, there was no payment of
rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of
the suit premises whereas their forefathers paid the
property tax etc. as the owners. It was also averred
that the appellants fabricated the records to file an
eviction petition against the respondents.
.....
18) The Constitution Bench of this Court settled the
law relating to exercise of jurisdiction of the High
Court while deciding revision in rent matters under
the Rent Control Act in the case of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra). Justice
R.M. Lodha the learned Chief Justice speaking for the
Bench held in para 43 thus:
“43. We hold, as we must, that none of the
above Rent Control Acts entitles the High
Court to interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the first appellate court/first
appellate authority because on reappreciation
of the evidence, its view is different from the
court/authority below. The consideration or
examination of the evidence by the High
Court in revisional jurisdiction under these
Acts is confined to find out that finding of
facts recorded by the court/authority below
is according to law and does not suffer from
any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by
court/authority below, if perverse or has
been arrived at without consideration of the
material evidence or such finding is based on
no evidence or misreading of the evidence or
is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand,
it would result in gross miscarriage of justice,
is open to correction because it is not treated
as a finding according to law. In that event,
the High Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under the above Rent Control
Acts shall be entitled to set aside the
impugned order as being not legal or proper.
The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as
to the correctness or legality or propriety of
any decision or order impugned before it as
indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to
the regularity, correctness, legality or
propriety of the impugned decision or the
order, the High Court shall not exercise its
power as an appellate power to reappreciate
or reassess the evidence for coming to a
different finding on facts. Revisional power is
not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a
court of first appeal. Where the High Court is
required to be satisfied that the decision is
according to law, it may examine whether the
order impugned before it suffers from
procedural illegality or irregularity.”
19) It is also now a settled principle of law that the
concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation
governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished
from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a
relative term, the import whereof depends on the
context in which it is used. In rent control legislation,
the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is
entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from
for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant
and then to retain control, hold and use the premises
for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof
of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably
may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a
claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide Sheela & Ors.
vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC
375).
Comments
Post a Comment