Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh
Supreme Court of India, 27 August 2014, 5 judges
Revisional power of the High Court under the Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala Rent Control Acts does not allow it to re-appreciate evidence and reverse findings of fact merely because it takes a different view.
Facts
While hearing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, a 2-Judge Bench considered whether the High Court, as revisional authority under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, could interfere with findings of fact of the first appellate authority. The appellant relied on Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana, which held that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence; the respondent relied on Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, which held that the words "legality and propriety" allow reappraisal of evidence. Finding a conflict between these 3-Judge Bench decisions, the Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench by order of August 27, 2009. Other appeals and special leave petitions arising under the Kerala and Tamil Nadu Rent Control Acts were also referred, and the group came before a 5-Judge Bench.
Questions before the Court
- What is the extent, scope and meaning of the terms "legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety" and "legality, regularity or propriety" in the revisional provisions of the Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala Rent Control Acts?
- Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts can re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with findings of fact of the first appellate court or authority.
What the Court held
- The revisional provisions of the three Rent Control Acts are substantially similar. Though wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, none confers a power as wide as that of an appellate court, and revision cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.
- The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of the first appellate court or authority merely because, on re-appreciating the evidence, its view is different. Its examination of evidence is confined to seeing whether the finding is according to law.
- A finding of fact that is perverse, based on no evidence or on misreading of evidence, arrived at without considering material evidence, or so grossly erroneous that it would cause gross miscarriage of justice, is not according to law and may be set aside in revision.
- The view in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana was approved. Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander does not hold that revisional power is co-extensive with appellate power and must be read as explained in this judgment.
Why it matters
The Constitution Bench resolved a conflict between two 3-Judge Bench decisions on the meaning of "legality and propriety" in rent control revisions. It approved Rukmini and several decisions following it, explained Ram Dass and other cases as not permitting re-appreciation of evidence, approved the statement in Dattonpant that the High Court is not a second court of first appeal, and set out the grounds on which a finding of fact may be corrected in revision.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“None of these statutes confers on revisional authority the power as wide as that of appellate court or appellate authority despite such power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under these provisions to bring the orders of the Trial Court/Rent Controller and Appellate Court/Appellate Authority for re-hearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings.”
“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 re-appreciation 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.”
“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 re-appreciate or re-assess 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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 15(6), Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973
- Section 25, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
- Section 20, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
Case and bench
- Parties
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004 (with connected civil appeals and special leave petitions)
- Decided
- 27 August 2014
- Bench
- R.M. Lodha, CJI, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, S.A. Bobde
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Constitution Bench written by R.M. Lodha, CJI and signed by all five judges.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.