High Courts cannot appreciate evidence under revisional jurisdiction for Rent Control matters – SC

The Supreme Court has held that High Courts, while exercising revisional jurisdiction in rent control matters, cannot re examine evidence and interfere with the findings of fact of the appellate authority..The judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench presided by Chief Justice RM Lodha and comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Kurian Joseph, Madan B Lokur and SA Bobde in a batch of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions..The matter was first heard by a Division Bench which had then referred the case to the Constitution Bench in the light of two contradictory decisions delivered by the Supreme Court – Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others [(1993) 1 SCC 499] and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others [AIR 1988 SC 1422]. In Rukmini, the Court had held that revisional court can go into the ‘propriety’ of the order but it does not entitle the revisional court to re-appreciate evidence. Ram Dass, was however, relied upon to prove that High Courts could indeed re appreciate evidence in its revisional capacity in rent control matters. .The controversy centred round the observation in Ram Dass that,.“… jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also...”..The Court, however, held that 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 is so grossly erroneous that it would result in miscarriage of justice..“Ramdass does not hold that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact because on reappreciation of the evidence its view is different from that of the first Appellate Court or Authority…. 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.”.The Court, therefore, ruled that the revisional power of the High Courts is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order and its examination of evidence should be limited to finding out if legal shortcomings are present..“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 reappreciation 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.”.With this judgment, the Bench has resolved the conflict that was prevalent as a result of two contradicting decisions of the Supreme Court and the ambiguity in the legal position that arose out of those decisions..Read the full judgment below.