• HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. A v. DILBAHAR SINGH

Judgment

14 S.C.R. 1379 • HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. A v. DILBAHAR SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004) AUGUST 27, 2014 B [R. M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] Jurisdiction - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - As provided under Rent Control Acts of Haryana, Kera/a and C Tamil Nadu - Ambit and scope of - Held: The scope of revisional jurisdiction provided under provisions of the Acts confines the power of the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by first appellate court/authority, only to the extent offinding out that the finding offact recorded by D court below did not suffer from any error- It cannot interfere with finding of fact in order to take a different view exercising its power as a court of appeal - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - s. 15(6) - Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - s. 20 - Tamil Nadu E Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960-s. 25 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 115. Words & Phrases: Term 'legality or propriety' - Extent, scope, ambit and F · meaning of, in the context of s. 15(6) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Term 'regularity correctness, legality and propriety' - Extent, scope, ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960.. G Term 'legality, regularity or propriety - Extent, scope, ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 20 of Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 1379 H 1380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1 [2014) 14 S.C.R. A Answering the referred question, the Court HELD: 1. Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate jurisdiction, but it is not vice-versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has 8 an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive with that of the trial court. ·Ordinarily, appellate c . jurisdiction involves re-hearing on facts and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, revision is· not continuation of suit or of original proceeding. When the aid ofrevisional court is invoked on the revisional side, _it can interfere within the D permissible parameters provided in the statute. As regards the extent of appellate or revisionaljurisdiction, ·much would, however, depend on the language employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction. [Para 25][140.3-E~H; E 1404-A-B] / -F

#2. Where both expressions "appeal" and "revision" are employed in a statute, obviously, the expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression "appeal". The use of two expressions "appeal" and "revision" when used in one statute conferring appellate power and revisional power, is not without purpose and significance.· [~ara 32][1405-D·E] G

#3. The observation in Ram Dass case that as th(il expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is "legality and propriety'', the High Court has wider jurisdiction obviously means that the power of revision vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the H power conferred on it under Section 115 CPC; it is not HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. DILBAHAR SINGH 1381 confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in A dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of. findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself thatthe decision is"according to law". *Ram Dass case does not lay· down as a proposition of law that the· revisional power of the High Court under the Rent B Control Act is as wide as that of the Appellate Court'. [Para 33][1406-D-E, G] D

#4. 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 C evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. The view of this Court in **Rukmini case is approved. [Para 39] [1409-A-B]

#5. None of the three Rent Control Acts of H.aryana, Kerala and Tamil Nadu entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority on the ground that on re appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from E 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 F 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 G result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. The High Court is entitled to sa~isfy itself 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 H . 1382 SUPREME COURT REPO_RTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. A 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 evid1mce for coming to a different finding on facts. Where' the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, It may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity. [Para 45][1410-B-H] ' · · ' .~ B **Rukmini Amma Saradamm:a ·v. Kailyahi . Sulochana and others 1.992 (3) Suppl. SCR 579 : (1993) 1 SCC 499; Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval 1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 67: (1975) 2 SCC 246; Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others 1960•SCR 896: AIR 1960 SC 655; Mis. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar(1980) 4 SCC 259; P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal 1987 (Supp) SCC 250; Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675; . Ubaiba v. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC .. 645; .T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and. Ors. 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 143 : (1999) 7 sec . 275; V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors (2006) 9 SCC 606; Olympic Industries v. Mui/a · ~, · Hussainy Bhai .Mui/a Akberally ~and Ors. 2009 (1 O) scR 338 : (2009) 15 sec 528 - approved. · · · c D E F