Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Thakur vs Roshini Chauhan on 22 July, 2019
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
C.R. No. 93/2019
Date of decision: 22.7.2019
.
Ramesh Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
Roshini Chauhan .....Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 No
For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Nemo
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
The Courts are not meant to pander to the inflated egos of the litigants.
2 The relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is not disputed. The tenant approached the learned Rent Controller by filing an application under Section 11(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the 'Rent Act') as the electricity supply to the premises let out to her was disconnected by the landlord without any just and sufficient cause. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 26.6.2018. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 2 Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2019 constraining the landlord to file the instant petition.
3 I have heard the learned counsel for the landlord and have .
also gone through the material that has come on record.
4 At the outset, it would be noticed that the scope of revisional jurisdiction which this Court can exercise must borne in mind, as the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 laid down certain broad principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which can be summarized as under:
(i) The term 'propriety' would imply something which is legal and proper.
(ii) The power of the High Court even though wider than the one provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not wide enough to that of the appellate Authority.
(iii) Such power cannot be exercised as the cloak of an appeal in disguise.
(iv) Issues raised in the original proceedings cannot be permitted to be reheard as a appellate Authority.
(v) The expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of much narrower expression than the one expressed by the expression "appeal". The revisional power under the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC but certainly it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. While holding so the Court ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 3 reiterated the view taken in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagawal, (1975) 2 SCC 246.
(vi). The meaning of the expression "legality and propriety"
.
so explained in Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander, (1988) 3 SCC 131 was only to the extent that exercise of the power is not confined to jurisdictional error alone and has to be "according to law".
(vii) Whether or not the finding of fact is according to law or not is required to be seen on the touch stone, as to whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence; overlooking; ignoring the material evidence all together; suffers from perversity; illegality; or such finding has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice. Court clarified that the ratio of Ram Dass (supra) does not exposit that the revisional power conferred upon the High Court is as wide as an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a finding contrary to the findings returned by the authority below.
(viii) In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction High Court shall not reverse findings of fact merely because on reappreciation of the evidence it may have a different view thereupon.
(ix) The exercise of such power to examine record and facts must be understood in the context of the purpose that such findings are based on firm legal basis and not on a wrong premise of law.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 4(x) Pure findings of fact are not to be interfered with.
Reconsideration of all questions of fact is impermissible as Court cannot function as a Court of appeal.
(xi) Even while considering the propriety and legality, high .
Court cannot reappreciate the evidence only for the purposes of arriving at a different conclusion.
Consideration of the evidence is confined only to adjudge the legality, regularity and propriety of the order.
(xii) Incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context of such findings being perverse, based on no evidence; and misreading of evidence."
5 In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The incongruity in the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 and Ram Dass (supra) was the backdrop in which the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide the scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the expression "legality and propriety" provided in the relevant statues. The essential question being as to whether in exercise of such powers, the revisional authority could reappreciate the evidence or not.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 5Finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the reference by making the following observations: "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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 6 required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers."
.
6 Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it would be noticed that admittedly the electricity supply to the premises let out to the tenant had been disconnected by the landlord on the ground of nonpayment of such charges.
7 Even though there appears to be some dispute regarding rate of rent, but that by itself was not sufficient ground and could not have been made the basis for the landlord to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises let out to the tenant. Further ground on the basis of which, electricity was disconnected was that the tenant had failed to pay the electricity charges. Even this fact by itself would not be a sufficient ground to disconnect the electricity supply, more particularly, when it has been proved on record that there is submeter installed in the premises. Once that be the admitted position, then obviously non payment of the amount due, if any, on account of electricity consumption would be a matter between electricity department and the tenant and it would be the prerogative of the aforesaid department to disconnect the electricity supply as per rules in case the electricity charges are not deposited.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP 79 In such circumstances, it is not difficult to guess why the landlord has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
If it is not for his inflated ego, then why else is he hell bent to show .
the tenant the door of this court.
10 This is a fit case where heavy cost ought to be imposed upon the landlord for having filed such a frivolous petition, but taking into account the persuasive submission of the learned counsel for the landlord, coupled with the fact that the notice has yet not been issued to the opposite party, i.e. tenant, I refrain from doing so.
11 In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
22.7.2019 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:02:36 :::HCHP