Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent refuted the above stated submissions arguing that in eviction suit, court has to see only relationship of landlord and tenant as well as ground on the basis of which eviction is sought and it is well settled principle of law that complicated question of title can not be decided in eviction suit filed under the BBC Act and, therefore, the learned court below rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. He, further, submitted that witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent stated about need of the plaintiff and moreover, need of the plaintiff was not denied by the defendant- petitioner and, therefore, now, at this stage, the defendant- petitioner can not say that need of the plaintiff-respondent was not bonafide. He, further, submitted that the learned court below discussed the evidences in right prospective and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was in bonafide need of the suit premises and need of the plaintiff-respondent could not have fulfilled by partial eviction. He, further, submitted that this court in very exceptional circumstances can reappreciate the evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction and in the present case, there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity on the basis of which this court could reappreciate the evidences on record. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent cited decisions reported in 2002(1) PLJR 144, (SC) 2014 (9) Supreme court cases 78 and AIR 2002 SC 136.

9. Having heard the contentions of both parties I have gone through the record along with lower court record.

10. It is obvious from perusal of the impugned judgment that learned court below framed issued no. 4 in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant of the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant- petitioner and discussed the aforesaid issue at para 9 of the impugned judgment. It is also obvious that the plaintiff-respondent brought Eviction suit no. 15/2008 under the BBC Act on the ground of personal necessity as mentioned under section 11 of the aforesaid Act. It is well settled principle of law that if a suit of eviction is brought under special Act for eviction of a tenant, title of the parties can not be decided in the aforesaid eviction suit. In the case of Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 136, Apex Court of this country stated that question of title of the parties to an eviction suit filed on the ground mentioned in the Bihar Buildings (lease, rent and control) Act can not be decided in the said eviction suit. It has further been held by Apex Court in the above stated decision that sine qua non for granting relief in the suit under the Act is that relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant should exist and scope of enquiry before the court is limited to the question as to whether grounds for eviction of the defendant have been made out under the Act or not? Therefore, it is not in dispute that if a suit of eviction is sought on the grounds mentioned in BBC Act, in that suit, title of the parties can not be decided and the court has to see only as to whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant of the aforesaid suit exists or not and as to whether there is ground for eviction or not?.

13. Admittedly, in section 14(8) of the BBC Act, provision of appeal has not been provided and only provision of revision has been provided and the High court can call for the record of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order under section is according to law or not, if an application being made within 60 days of the date of order of eviction. It is well settled principle of law that scope of revisional jurisdiction depends on language of Statute and the revisional jurisdiction can not be equated at par with an appeal. Therefore, in revisional jurisdiction, there is very limited scope to reappreciate evidence and to substitute findings of the revisional court in place of findings of the court below. In this regard, decisions of Chandrika Prasad (D) through legal representatives vs. Umesh Kumar Verma and others reported in 2002 (1) PLJR 144 (SC) as well as 2014 (9) SCC 78 are relevant. In BBC Act revisional jurisdiction has been granted to the High court to satisfy as to whether lower court has passed order in accordance with law or not and, therefore, the aforesaid provision does not permit revisional court to reappreciate evidences unless there is perversity or gross illegality. In the present case, no perversity or illegality in appreciation of the evidences has been brought on behalf of the defendant petitioner and, therefore, in my view, there is no scope for this court to reappreciate evidences available on lower court record. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, revisional court can not substitute its finding replacing finding of the court below unless finding of the court below is completely perverse.