Can Revisional Court Re-appreciate Evidence under Rent Control Act - Apex Court negatived the same

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh CA 6177 OF 2004

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41852

Conflicting  views  of coordinate three Judge Benches of the Apex Court  as  to  the  meaning,   ambit and    scope     of    the    expression   "legality  and  propriety"and whether in revisional jurisdiction the  High  Court  can  re-appreciate the evidence resulted in a reference to a a larger bench (of five judges). 

Facts : Provisions of Rent Control Act of Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala states in issue.

Issue : extent, scope, ambit and meaning of  the  terms  “legality  or propriety”, “regularity, correctness, legality or propriety” and  “legality, regularity or propriety” under the said Act.

Decision : After referring to the law on the subject as prevailing, the Apex Court observed :

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.

Referring to the three statutes in issue, the court said at Para 31 : "...None of these statutes confers on  revisional authority the power  as  wide  as  that  of  appellate  court  or appellate authority despite such power being wider than that provided in  Section  115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The provision under consideration does  not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak  of an appeal in disguise.  Revision does not  lie under these provisions  to bring  the  orders  of  the  Trial  Court/Rent  Controller and   appellate Court/Appellate Authority  for  re-hearing  of  the  issues  raised  in  the original proceedings."

While affirming the view in Lakshmi(supra) the court said at Para 32 : "...The use of two expressions  “appeal”  and  “revision” when used in one statute conferring appellate power  and revisional  power, we think, is not without purpose and  significance.   Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a re-hearing while  it  is  not  so  in  the  case  of revisional jurisdiction when the same statute provides the remedy by way  of an ‘appeal’ and so also of a ‘revision’.  If that were  so,  the  revisional power would become  co-extensive  with  that  of  the trial  Court  or  the subordinate Tribunal which is never the  case."

While approving the view in Dattona(supra) the court said "....We are  of  the  view that in the garb of revisional  jurisdiction  under  the  above  three  Rent Control Statutes, the High Court is not conferred a status of  second  Court of first appeal  and  the  High  Court  should  not enlarge  the  scope  of revisional jurisdiction to that extent."

The court distinguished the decision in Ram(supra) at Para 33 : "...it rightly observes that revisional power is subject  to well-known limitations inherent in  all  revisional  jurisdictions  and the matter  essentially turns on the  language  of  the  statute  investing  the jurisdiction.  We do not think that there  can  ever  be  objection  to  the above statement."  

Dealing with the controversy centers round  the  following  observation in Ram Dass (supra), “...that  jurisdiction  enables  the  Court  of  revision,  in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness  of  the  findings  of  facts also...”, Apex Court clarified that "... 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”.""

At Para 39, the court approved the view in Rukmini (supra) "the  word “propriety” does not confer power  upon  the  High  Court  to  re-appreciate evidence to  come  to  a  different conclusion  but  its  consideration  of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety  of  the order impugned before it."

43.  .....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. 

44. ....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 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 re-appreciate or re-assess 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.

Legal Principles :

Power of High Court to reappreciate evidence in reviional jurisiction is - 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.

Revisional power cannot be equated with the  power  of re-consideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal.

Cases discussed by the Apex Court :

Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499]

[2]    Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422]

[3]    Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655]

[4]    Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval;

[(1975) 2 SCC 246]

[5]    M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy

Chettiar; [(1980) 4 SCC 259]

[6]    P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal; [1987 (Supp) SCC 250]

[7]    H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam; [(1969) 2 SCC 194]

[8]     Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla; [(1991) 1 SCC 422]

[9]    Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675]

[10]   Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; [(1999) 6 SCC 222]

[11]   Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors.; [(1999) 1 SCC 141]

[12]   M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan; [(1999) 1 SCC 439]

[13]   Central Tobacco Company v. Chandra Prakash; [1969 UJ 432]

[14]   Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr.; [(1991) 1 SCC 343]

[15]   Ubaiba v. Damodaran; [(1999) 5 SCC 645]

[16]   T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; [(1999) 7 SCC 275]

[17]   Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu; [(2000) 2 SCC 135]

[18]   Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and Anr.; [(2001) 3 SCC 445]

[19]   V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9 SCC 606]

[20]   Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors.;[(2009) 15 SCC 528]

https://twitter.com/Nagamani1956