- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
D. Radhakrishnan And Another v. M. Loorduswamy And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Leave was granted to hear a landlord’s appeal arising from a revisional order of the High Court of Madras. The landlord had sought eviction of tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction.
The Rent Controller, on the materials produced, found the landlord’s need to be bona fide and ordered eviction. The tenants appealed; the Appellate Authority reappreciated the evidence and affirmed the Rent Controller’s findings. The tenants then invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. The High Court interfered with the concurrent findings on the landlord’s bona fide need and set aside the eviction order. The landlord appealed that revisional order to this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the High Court could interfere with and reappreciate the concurrent factual findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority regarding the landlord’s bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 25 by examining the object of the Act and interfering with the concurrent factual findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
- Given the limited revisional scope, the High Court could not reappreciate evidence; therefore, its order is unsustainable.
Respondents' Arguments
- The High Court was justified in exercising its revisional power to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the decisions of the forums below.
- Interference in revision was permissible on that standard and should not be faulted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 | A Constitution Bench elaborately considered the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. | The Court noted this background but confined the present decision to whether the High Court could, in revision under Section 25, interfere with concurrent findings; it emphasized the limited scope of revisional review. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- The Court identified the dispositive question as the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act when faced with concurrent findings by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the landlord’s bona fide need under Section 14(1)(b).
- While acknowledging that the High Court’s revisional power under Section 25 is not identical to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court clarified that it is not an appellate power. The High Court in revision is to examine whether the procedure adopted was regular and whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the decision.
- Reappreciation of evidence, particularly by invoking the object of the Act, is beyond the remit of revisional scrutiny under Section 25 when the lower forums have reached concurrent factual findings.
- Upon scrutinizing the Rent Controller’s order, the Appellate Authority’s affirmance, and the High Court’s revisional judgment, the Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the concurrent findings on bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The impugned revisional order of the High Court is set aside. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, is affirmed. Respondent 1 is granted six months’ time to deliver vacant possession to the landlord, subject to filing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. It was also stated by counsel that one tenant has already vacated and the other has left the premises.
IMPLICATIONS: The direct effect is that the eviction order stands restored and time-bound compliance is required from Respondent 1 subject to an undertaking. The opinion does not discuss broader implications or establish a new legal rule beyond applying the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction; no new precedent was set.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This is a landlord's appeal against the revisional order of the High Court of Madras setting aside the order of eviction of tenants, on an application being filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). On the basis of the materials produced in course of the proceedings, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and accordingly the order was passed for eviction. The tenants carried the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller on reappreciation of the evidence adduced in the case.
3. The tenants then carried the matter to the High Court in revision invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of the Act. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the two forums below on the question of need of the landlord bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is this order of the High Court which is the subject-matter of appeal in this Court.
4. Mr Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act by examining the object of the Act and interfering with the findings arrived at by the two forums and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the forums below and the jurisdiction of the High Court being to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the decisions taken by the forums below, the same cannot be found fault with.
5. The requirement of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction has been considered and dealt with elaborately by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996) 6 SCC 475. The only question that arises for our consideration is, whether the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, could have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. Though the power of revision of the High Court under Section 25 cannot be held to be similar to the power of the civil court under Section 115 CPC, but at the same time, the same cannot be held to be conferring appellate power on the High Court. The High Court is only required to examine and satisfy itself as to whether the procedure followed by the forum below is regular or not and whether there has been any illegality in or impropriety of the decisions arrived at.
6. Having scrutinised the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord requiring demolition and reconstruction. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, to find out illegality with the findings or illegality of any procedure, it was not open to it to reappreciate the evidence, in the light of the object of the Act. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and affirm the decision of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Respondent 1 is granted six months' time to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord subject to the usual undertaking being filed in this Court within four weeks from today. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
7. It is stated by Mr Sampath that one of the tenants has already vacated and the other one has left the premises.
Alert