Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2024

affirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is assailed before this Court.

6. One of the grounds to assail the impugned orders, raised by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners is that landlady has put forth his necessity for the demised shops for commercial use in order to open a departmental store, whereas the property in ques(cid:28)on is a residen(cid:28)al property and that such a change of use is not permissible. Page No.2 out of 19 pages RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M)

7. The Appellate Authority aGer considering this conten(cid:28)on, has rightly rejected the same. It is not in dispute that demised shops are being used by both the tenants for commercial purposes, as they are running shops therein. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Vs. Yashpal Singh, 2009 (16) SCC 634 that where residen(cid:28)al building is given on rent for commercial purpose with mutual consent, then landlord thereof can seek evic(cid:28)on of the property on the ground that this residen(cid:28)al building is needed for the commercial purpose. Moreover, once the appellant/ tenant himself is running a commercial ac(cid:28)vity at the spot, he cannot complaint at least on this ground.

8. Similarly, in Jarnail Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar, 2018 (4) PLR 700, it had been held by this Court that if a building is used for non-residen(cid:28)al purposes, landlord cannot be deprived of possession thereof for being used for the same purpose. This Court observed further that it would be totally inequitable, if the landlord is deprived of an opportunity to use the building being used for non-residen(cid:28)al purpose by the tenant. Same view was also taken by this Court in M/s Bharat Electricals Vs. Dr. Sukhdev Raj Goyal, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 26.

9. In view of the legal posi(cid:28)on as above, the conten(cid:28)on raised by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners is hereby rejected.

10. Another conten(cid:28)on raised by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners – tenants is that earlier ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons filed by the landlady in 2001 were dismissed in 2005 and even the appeals of the landlady were dismissed by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the present pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons are not maintainable being barred by the principle of res-judicata.

11. This Court does not find any merit in the conten(cid:28)on and learned Appellate Authority, aGer considering the submissions of both the sides, has rightly rejected the same. RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.3 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M)

12. As per the evidence on record, earlier ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons were filed by the landlady in September, 2001 on the ground of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit & unsafe for human habita(cid:28)on and bonafide necessity. However, the landlady did not lead any evidence to support the conten(cid:28)ons and so, her evidence was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons were dismissed in March 2005. The appeal filed by the landlady against these orders was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in December, 2005. The present pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons have been filed in March 2010 i.e. more than four years from the dismissal of the appeals arising out of the earlier ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons and aGer more than 8 years of the earlier pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons.

13. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Sundaraju Che3ar Vs. M.R. Ramchandra Naidu, AIR 1994 SC 2129 that bonafide requirement is a recurring cause of ac(cid:28)on and even if the existence of such a cause of ac(cid:28)on had not been found in the previous proceedings for evic(cid:28)on, the same cannot be discarded, if such a claim is established by the cogent evidence adduced by the landlord in the subsequent proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that subsequent applica(cid:28)on can be filed by the landlord seeking ejectment by jus(cid:28)fying a case of bonafide requirement.

14. Similarly, in N.R. Narayan Swamy Vs. B. Francis Jagan (SC) Law Finder doc Id #3610, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where earlier evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on is dismissed on the ground of bonafide requirement, fresh evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on can s(cid:28)ll be filed when genuine new necessity arises in future. In evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on, the ground of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent are recurring causes and that landlord is not precluded from ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ng fresh proceedings.

15. Same view has been taken by co-ordinate Benches of this Court RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.4 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) in Darshana Devi Vs. Kewal Krishan, 2015 (4) RCR (Civil) 230; Amrit Lal Walia Vs. Bhagwant Singh, 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 238 and Ranjit Singh Vs. Narinder Kaur, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 239.

16. In view of the afore-said seKled legal posi(cid:28)on, the conten(cid:28)on of learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners – tenants is not tenable at all. Merely because the earlier ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons filed in 2001 were dismissed in 2005, cannot be ground to reject the subsequent pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons, which have been filed in March, 2010 i.e. more than 08 years from the date of filing of the earlier ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons, though of course, it is required to be seen that landlord has been able to make out a case for ejectment in the subsequent proceedings.

17. Another conten(cid:28)on raised by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners- tenants is that landlady is guilty of concealing her other proper(cid:28)es. Learned counsel has drawn aKen(cid:28)on towards a leKer dated

23.11.2015 (Ex.R5), which was received by the tenant from the Returning Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vidhan Sabha, Halqa Faridkot, which shows that the tenant Sudarshan Sharma had sought the informa(cid:28)on about the proper(cid:28)es held by the landlady Smt. Dimpi Malhotra and her husband Deep Malhotra qua Vidhan Sabha Elec(cid:28)ons 2012 under RTI Act, 2005. As per this leKer, since it was a third party informa(cid:28)on under the RTI Act, 2005, therefore, Deep Malhotra was asked in wri(cid:28)ng to provide the informa(cid:28)on but said Deep Malhotra gave in wri(cid:28)ng that since this informa(cid:28)on was personal and private, therefore, the informa(cid:28)on may not be supplied to anyone. Learned counsel contends that the mere fact that the husband of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner inten(cid:28)onally did not disclose his other proper(cid:28)es, so inference should be drawn that pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner owned other proper(cid:28)es in Ludhiana.

18. This Court does not find any merit in this conten(cid:28)on. As per RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.5 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) the tes(cid:28)mony of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner – landlady, she does not own or possess any other non-residen(cid:28)al or commercial building within the urban limits of Municipal Corpora(cid:28)on Ludhiana nor had vacated any such other building aGer coming into force of the Rent Act, 1949. There is no evidence on the part of the tenants so as to rebut the above-said tes(cid:28)mony of the landlady.

19. It has been held by this Court in Kanwaljit Singh Walia Vs. Gurcharan Kaur, Law Finder doc Id#1667239 that landlord is not obliged to disclose premises, which are not in his occupa(cid:28)on. It has also been held in Bombay Kashmir Goods Carrier Vs. Charanjit Singh, Law Finder Doc Id#2040602 that property not in occupa(cid:28)on of the landlord must be dis(cid:28)nguished from the owned proper(cid:28)es and that if the property is not in occupa(cid:28)on, no disclosure is necessary. In yet another case (cid:28)tled Shammi Kapur Vs. Raghbir Kaur (P&H), Law Finder Doc Id# 933634, it has been held by this Court that mere ownership of other proper(cid:28)es does not make any difference. Sec(cid:28)on 13 of the Act uses the terms “Use and Occupa(cid:4)on” and not words “the ownership”. Therefore, on this ground alone, no concealment can be alleged.

20. In the present case, the tenants- pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners have failed to bring on record any details regarding the other proper(cid:28)es in occupa(cid:28)on of the landlady. As such, both the Courts below have rightly rejected the conten(cid:28)on of the tenants to the effect that the landlord did not disclose about the other proper(cid:28)es and so, any inference should be drawn against her. Said conten(cid:28)on has no merit.

21. Coming to the case put forth by the landlady regarding her bonafide requirement, first of all, let us see the legal posi(cid:28)on in this regard. What is the criteria to judge the need of the landlord to be bonafide and as to what does the term ‘bonafide need’ means, has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of authori(cid:28)es. RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.6 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M)

22. Reliance can be placed upon Paramjit Singh Vs. Jagat Singh 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 774, wherein this court referred to various authori(cid:28)es of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of High Court and then held in para No.9 as under: “9. Though the terminology of `bonafide requirement' has not been defined in the Act but in Raghunath G. Panhale v. M/s Chagan Lal Sudarji and Company, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the following guidelines:-

1. Requirement of landlord must be both reasonable and bonafide.

2. The word "reasonable" connotes that requirement is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be mere desire.

3. The word requirement coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity.

4. A reasonable and bonafide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand that a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. 5. It may not be need in praesen(cid:28) or within reasonable proximity in the future. The word bona fide means that need must be honest and not be trained with any oblique mo(cid:28)ve.

6. Language of provision cannot be unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible for landlord get possession. Construc(cid:28)on of relevant statutory provision must strike a balance between right of landlord and right of tenant.

7. Court should not proceed on assump(cid:28)on that requirement of landlord was not bona fide and that tenant could not dictate to the landlord as to how he should adjust himself without geJng possession of tenant premises.

23. This Court then further held in paras No.10 & 11 as under: “10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements had laid down guiding principles to be followed by a court while adjudica(cid:28)ng the RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.7 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) bonafide requirement of a landlord, which should be genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. In M/s Rahabhar Produc?ons Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, 1998(1) Rent Control Reporters 482, it has been observed as under:- "The phrase "bona fide need" or "bona fide requirement" occurs not only in the Delhi Rent Control Act but in the Rent Control legisla(cid:28)on of other States also. What is the meaning of this phrase has been considered innumerable (cid:28)mes by various High Courts as also by this Court and requires no cita(cid:28)ons to explain its legal implica(cid:28)ons. Even then reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Ram Das v. Ishwar Chander and others, 1988(1) RCR(Rent) 625, in which it was indicated that "bona fide need" should be genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. It was also indicated that landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has, inevitably, a subjec(cid:28)ve element in it. The "desire" to become "requirement" must have the objec(cid:28)ve element of a "need" which can be decided only by taking all relevant circumstances into considera(cid:28)on so that the protec(cid:28)on afforded to a tenant is not rendered illusory or whiKled down. These observa(cid:28)ons were made in respect of the provisions contained in E.P. Urban Rent Restric(cid:28)on Act, 1949."

11. The bonafide requirement of a landlord depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a strait jacket formula for this purpose. The burden lies upon the landlord to establish that the accommoda(cid:28)on is bonafide required by him for personal use. While adjudica(cid:28)ng whether the requirement is bonafide or not, it is to be seen objec(cid:28)vely and not subjec(cid:28)vely by the Court though, the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. The need of the landlord must exist so as to dis(cid:28)nguish it from mere wish or desire.”

24. In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 1998 RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.8 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) (2) Apex Court Journal 704, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when landlord asserts that he requires building for his own occupa(cid:28)on, Rent Controller shall not proceed on presump(cid:28)on that requirement is not bona fide. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupa(cid:28)on the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presump(cid:28)on that the requirement is not bona fide. When other condi(cid:28)ons of the clause are sa(cid:28)sfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presump(cid:28)on that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is oGen said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without geSng possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the ques(cid:28)on of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.”

25. In the light of aforesaid legal posi(cid:28)on, it is required to be seen as to whether landlady in the present case has been able to prove her bonafide need for the tenanted premises so as to order the ejectment of the respondents – tenants.

26. When in the light of aforesaid legal posi(cid:28)on, the evidence on file is considered, it is found that the tenants were unable to rebut the evidence of the landlady regarding her bonafide need. It is the specific case of the landlady supported by evidence that family of her husband was originally seKled in Faridkot. When the terrorism was at peak in Punjab and the State was disturbed, Faridkot became unsafe for living and therefore, the family shiGed to New Delhi. The landlady started business of bou(cid:28)que there-at. However, the business could not run successfully in New Delhi, as she was new to the City and with the restora(cid:28)on of normalcy in Punjab, she decided to seKle at Ludhiana, it being a centrally located city and RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.9 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) commercially developed. It is further tes(cid:28)fied by the landlady that when the property N: B-XIX/392 was purchased, of which the demised shops are the part, the same was old construc(cid:28)on. Most of the property except the shops on the Ghumar Mandi roadside were unoccupied. The unoccupied por(cid:28)on was not being used for last several years and with the passage of (cid:28)me, this por(cid:28)on became dilapidated and unfit and unsafe for human habita(cid:28)on. The property was purchased by the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oner -landlady for construc(cid:28)ng a suitable building for her business as well as her residence. All the shop-keepers were requested to vacate the premises. Though two shop-keepers vacated the shops in their possession but the present two tenants i.e. Sudarshan and Sunil kept on delaying the maKer. AGer giving details about the unsafety of the premises and the previous li(cid:28)ga(cid:28)on, the landlady tes(cid:28)fied further that she requires the tenanted premises for her bonafide need. The en(cid:28)re rear por(cid:28)on behind the shops had already fallen. Malba thereof has since been removed. The landlady had earlier temporarily allowed M/s Oasis Dis(cid:28)lleries Pvt. Ltd., a company in which her husband and sons are Directors to occupy the other shops for running a liquor vend at the (cid:28)me of filing of the present pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons. As of now, those vacant shops are given to M/s Om Sons Marke(cid:28)ng Pvt. Ltd., in which son of landlord is Director on temporary basis. A temporary structure has been raised on the rear side for storing the stocks, which can be removed at any (cid:28)me and the building material could be re-used as the said structure is purely temporary one. It is tes(cid:28)fied by the landlord further that she intends to demolish the tenanted – demised shops along with the other shops already vacated by the tenants and will get the property developed and construct a Mul(cid:28)-Purpose Self Service Departmental Store. It is also tes(cid:28)fied that she and her family have sufficient funds for raising such type of Departmental Store and that property being situated in the commercial hub of the city, is fully suitable for the said purpose. The property shall be used for business purpose for her own use. It has also been tes(cid:28)fied by the Page No.10 out of 19 pages RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) landlady that her husband Shri Deep Malhotra was elected MLA from Faridkot during the pendency of this evic(cid:28)on pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on and that in the course of his official func(cid:28)ons, he has to con(cid:28)nuously travel between Faridkot and Chandigarh. Ludhiana falls in between the two places and therefore it is the most suitable place for the landlady to seKle down at Ludhiana, as demised premises being situated in Ghumar Mandi Main Chowk, which is a commercial hub, is most suitable for seSng up a Self Service Mul(cid:28)-Storeyed Departmental Store. She has also tes(cid:28)fied that presently, she is maintaining her residence at 225-B-Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana.

27. The tenants, i.e. pe(cid:4)(cid:4)oners herein could not refute the afore- said evidence produced by the landlady by producing any cogent evidence.

28. The conten(cid:28)on raised by the learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners is that landlady has not produced any evidence to have taken any step for construc(cid:28)ng a departmental store i.e. the projected necessity. It is also the conten(cid:28)on that landlady is an old lady and she belongs to a very affluent family, poli(cid:28)cally as well as financially, and that her projected need is fanciful, as it is not necessary that she will start any business in Ludhiana or that she requires to start any such business there-at. It is also the conten(cid:28)on that the two shops earlier got vacated by the landlady are now in possession of the family of the landlady and therefore, the bonafide necessity has come to an end.

29. There is no merit in the conten(cid:28)on and the same has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/ his bonafide necessity. If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.

30. In Balbir Kaur Vs. Roop Lal, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 279, the landlord was a reputed businessman having business in various countries. RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.11 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) The landlord sought evic(cid:28)on of the tenant from the ground floor of the shop-cum-office at Chandigarh to start a big departmental store of world repute, for which the landlord had the financial capacity. It was held by this Court that the need was bonafide and that it is the preroga(cid:28)ve of the landlord to expand his business. If the landlord asserts that he requires a tenanted premises to expand his business, his need must be presumed as bonafide. Rent Controller shall not proceed to presume that alleged need is not bonafide. It is not open to the Rent Controller to say that landlords are already having business in different countries and ci(cid:28)es and are well seKled in their lives and hence they do not require demised premises for seSng up departmental store of world repute in Chandigarh.

31. Similar view was taken by this Court in M/s Satpal Vijay Kumar Vs. Sushil Kumar, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil ) 82. In Madho Ram Garg Vs. Baldev Singh Bath and another, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 286, the landlord wanted shop for business. This Court went to the extent in holding that it is not part of the Court's duty to examine as to whether the business to be set up would be successful or not in the tenanted premises. The success or otherwise of a proposed business lies in the realm of specula(cid:28)on and the Courts abjure specula(cid:28)ve conclusions. The choice of the premises, the nature or the extent thereof rest solely with the landlord.

32. Further, simply because the landlady – respondent has grown old, as is contended by learned counsel for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners, cannot be a ground to reject the ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons, once she has proved her bonafide necessity.

33. Apart from the above, it is most important to no(cid:28)ce that the finding of the Courts below regarding the bonafide necessity of the landlady is a concurrent finding of fact. Whether this Court exercising in its revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on can interfere in the said finding or not, is to be seen. RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.12 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M)

34. In Daya Rani vs. Shabber Ahmed, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 365, an ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on was allowed by the Rent Controller. The appeal of the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The revision was allowed by High Court while exercising its power under Sec(cid:28)on 15 (6) of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Evic(cid:28)on Act, 1973, thus, seSng aside the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissing the ejectment pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on. The landlord approached Supreme Court. SeSng aside the order of the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “10. The provisions rela(cid:28)ng to revisional powers of the High Court in other Rent Legisla(cid:28)ons came up for considera(cid:28)on before the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpora?on Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh 2014(4) RCR (Civil) 162: 2014(2) RCR (Rent) 210” (2014) 9 SCC 78. The maKer was referred to the larger Bench because of two lines of decisions which were somewhat inconsistent as is apparent from the referral order quoted in para 3 of the decision. ”3. The two-Judge Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corpora?on Ltd. Case (2014) 9 SCC 102 felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its resolu(cid:28)on referred the maKer to the larger Bench. In the reference order Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh 2014(9) SCC 102 (dated 27.8.2009), the two-Judge Bench observed, thus: ”The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana, wherein Sec(cid:28)on 20 of the Kerala Rent was in ques(cid:28)on. It was held in the said decision that though Sec(cid:28)on 20 of the said Act provided that the Revisional Court can go into the ‘propriety’ of the order but it does not en(cid:28)tle the Revisional Court to reappreciate the evidence. A similar view was taken by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ubaiba vs. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC 645. RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.13 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander 1988(1) RCR (Rent) 625: (1988) 3 SCC 131 which was also a three- Judge Bench decision. It has been held in that case that the expression ‘legality and propriety’ enables the High Court in revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate court. A similar view was taken by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mo? Ram vs. Suraj Bhan AIR 1960 Supreme Court 655. From the above, it is clear that there are conflic(cid:28)ng views of coordinate three-Judge Benches of this Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression ‘legality and propriety’ and whether in revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on the High Court can reappreciate the evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the maKer needs to be considered by a larger Bench since this ques(cid:28)on arises in a large number of cases as similar provisions conferring power of revision exists in various rent control and other legisla(cid:28)ons, e.g. Sec(cid:28)on 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we direct that the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Jus(cid:28)ce for cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ng a larger Bench.” “11. While approving the law laid down by a Bench of three Judges in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 499], the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on Bench in para 43 of its judgment observed:- “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts en(cid:28)tles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on re- apprecia(cid:28)on of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The considera(cid:28)on or examina(cid:28)on of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on 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 RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.14 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without considera(cid:28)on 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 jus(cid:28)ce, is open to correc(cid:28)on because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on under the above Rent Control Acts shall be en(cid:28)tled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is en(cid:28)tled to sa(cid:28)sfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to sa(cid:28)sfy 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 reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsidera(cid:28)on of all ques(cid:28)ons of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be sa(cid:28)sfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”

12. It would, therefore, be relevant to consider the view taken by this Court in the Rukmini Amma Saradamma’ case (supra). That maKer arose from the exercise of Revisional Power by the High Court under Sec(cid:28)on 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which is in pari materia with Sec(cid:28)on 15(6) of the Act and empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record rela(cid:28)ng to any order passed as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceeding. Para 20 of the decision in Rukmini Amma Saradamma was to the following effect: “20. We are afraid this approach of the High Court is wrong. Even the wider language of Sec(cid:28)on 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the RENU 2024.09.23 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page No.15 out of 19 pages CR No.3388 of 2024 (O&M) CR No.3415 of 2024 (O&M) dis(cid:28)nc(cid:28)on between appellate and revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re- apprecia(cid:28)ng the en(cid:28)re evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report (Ext. C1 and C2 mahazar). In our considered view, the High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on. Even by the presence of the word "propriety" it cannot mean that there could be a re- apprecia(cid:28)on of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-apprecia(cid:28)on of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court with reference to the exercise of revisional jurisdic(cid:28)on.”