Case Law Details
Even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. We are in full agreement with the view of the 3-Judge Bench in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] that 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. We approve the view of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499].
The observation in Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675] that the revisional Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act cannot reverse the findings of the first appellate Court upon a reassessment of evidence is in line with Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] and we approve the same.
Similarly, the view in Ubaiba v. Damodaran; [(1999) 5 SCC 645] , which has followed Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] that, under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the Appellate Authority is the correct view and gets our nod.
In T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; [(1999) 7 SCC 275] this Court has held that under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the High Court does not enjoy an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. This view is the correct view and we approve the same.
The observation in Ramdoss that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499] and Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675] . Its observation that the 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. Ramdoss17 does not hold that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact because on re-appreciation of the evidence its view is different from that of the first Appellate Court or Authority.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
