Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1455 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumari v. Seema Sharma

2006-04-04

H.S.BHALLA

body2006
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This is a petition Under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) for setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana and the appellate authority. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that landlady Vijay Kumari filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the respondent, Seema Sharma from the tenanted premises. It was alleged by the landlady that respondent is tenant in the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- per month since November 1993. Relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties thus the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground that he has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. August 1995 and further respondent-tenant is also creating nuisance in the property. The tenant-respondent contested the petition and through reply the petition was attacked on number of grounds and while denying the averments raised in the petition, it was prayed by the respondent that the same be dismissed. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent from August 1995 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has caused nuisance in the demised property? OPP 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPP 4. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises? OPP 5. Relief 4. All these issues were taken up together by the learned Rent Controller and while considering the evidence available on the record led by the both the parties, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against this order, the tenant moved the Appellate Court but could not succeed and vide order dated 19.1.2005, the appeal was dismissed. The present petitioner had no other option but to knock the door of this Court Under Section 15(5). 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Aggrieved against this order, the tenant moved the Appellate Court but could not succeed and vide order dated 19.1.2005, the appeal was dismissed. The present petitioner had no other option but to knock the door of this Court Under Section 15(5). 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the present case in hand, proper issues were not framed and the Courts below have wrongly held that the petitioner has not been able to prove the ground of nuisance and in fact evidence led by the petitioner clearly spells out that the respondent is in arrears of rent since August 1995 as the rate of rent was settled at Rs. 700/- per month whereas rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from 1.4.1998 to 31.5.1998. Though the rent was due from her since August, 1995. 6. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned Counsel, I deem it appropriate to notice some of the judicial precedents on the scope of the revisional power of the High Court Under Section 15(5) of the Act. 9. In Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors. , the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of this Court reversing the judgments of the Appellate Authority and restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller for his eviction. Their Lordships referred to Section 15(5) of the Act and observed: Section 15(5) of the Act enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the "legality and propriety" of the order under revision, which is quite obviously, a much wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revision Court is not "a second court of first appeal. 10. In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. S. Chokosiri and Co. That jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revision Court is not "a second court of first appeal. 10. In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. S. Chokosiri and Co. , their Lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the order passed by this Court vide which the order of eviction passed against the respondent was set aside and observed: When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revision Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below. 7. It is crystal clear from the law quoted above, that the Court cannot reappraise the evidence to reverse finding of fact concurrently arrived at by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court. It has been held by the Apex Court in number of judicial pronouncements that while exercising jurisdiction Under Section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court does not act as a regular third Appellate Court and can interfere only within the scope of the Sub-Section. The High Court cannot re-examine the evidence on record to reverse the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. In Parveen Kumar and Ors. v. Suresh Chand and Ors. A.I.R. 2001 S.C.W. 4779(2), the Supreme Court has observed that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere only if the trial Court is shown to have committed any jurisdictional error or it is shown that its justification would have resulted into manifest injustice. After going through the records, I find that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record and they are based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered by this Court. 8. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not liable to be accepted since I find that the petitioner could not prove has case before the learned Rent Controller by leading convincing evidence with regard to the arrears of rent and on the ground of nuisance. Both the authorities below have referred to the relevant material on record for arriving at their findings. Both the authorities below have referred to the relevant material on record for arriving at their findings. Even on an independent evaluation of evidence, I am convinced that the petitioner-landlady failed to prove her case. 9. As a result of the above discussion, I hold that the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality or impropriety while recording their findings and in the result, the civil revision being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.