Summary
The High Court exceeded rent-control revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and overturning concurrent findings supporting eviction. Accounts and the occupant’s predecessor’s acknowledgment of the landlord supported the findings below, which were not perverse. The word “propriety” did not convert revision into an appeal, even where the dispute concerned the landlord–tenant relationship. The eviction decree was restored.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reappreciate the evidence of the landlord–tenant relationship in rent-control revision.
Held
- The earlier agricultural-tenancy claim had been rejected on accounts showing the predecessor’s managerial role. In the rent proceedings, the accounts and his acknowledgment of the landlord supported the concurrent conclusions reached on the full circumstances. (¶ 8–9)
- Revisional scrutiny of legality, regularity and propriety does not permit the High Court to act as a first or second appellate court or substitute its conclusion by reappreciating evidence. Characterising the landlord–tenant relationship as a jurisdictional fact does not remove that limit. (¶ 10–12)
- The findings below were supported by the record and were not perverse. Reappreciation to overturn them was therefore impermissible, requiring restoration of the eviction decree. (¶ 13–14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court revision judgment set aside and eviction decree of the Rent Control Court, as affirmed by the appellate authority, restored. No order as to costs.