Supreme Court: Court Cannot Interfere in Finding of Fact Unless Perversity or Misappreciation of Evidence Is Clear

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

The appellant, in this case, is the tenant of the respondent-landlord. The respondent-landlord filed three Eviction Petitions on three separate grounds. Arrears of rent, accommodation for the landlord’s business, and damage to the premises. under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(8), and 11(4)(ii), of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

The Trial Court in its judgment held against the landlord on the first and the third ground. For the third ground, the Trial Court held that being the partner of a firm; he would need the other two rooms. As for evidence, the Court said that the commissioner’s report didn’t show that any rooms were vacant. The Building Tax Assessment Register recorded that some rooms of the landlord are vacant. This Court could not rely upon this.

These findings were, inter alia reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The High Court interfered with the fact-findings of the Appellate Authority. The High Court, in turn, upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Commissioner had not reported the availability of any vacant room. The Court cannot take the entries in Building Tax Assessment Register as conclusive proof.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot act as if it is the Second Court of the first appeal. That is by setting aside findings of fact by the Appellate Authority. Further, it was submitted that for the High Court to interfere with the finding of a fact, there must be some perversity. In the present case, the Appellate Authority gave detailed and reasoned findings. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting the findings of the Trial Court for those of the Appellate Authority. The counsel relied upon the case law Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, (2003) 2 SCC 320 (Badrinarayan).

Respondent’s Contentions

The counsel for the respondent relied on the Trial Court judgment. Further, he stated that the Appellate Authority dealt with material facts on the record. He further stated that the High Court set aside the order since there was a degree of perversity in it. Further, he relied particularly on paragraphs 10 & 13 of the judgment in Badrinarayan.

Court’s Observations

Firstly, the High Court has interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate authority. Moreover, this is without any perversion or misappreciation of evidence by the Authority. The High Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by doing so, the Court said. Further, the bench referred to SC in its judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. The Constitution Bench, in this case, had held that the Rent Control Act allows the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact by a first Appellate Authority. But it can only be done if, on the reappreciation of evidence, the High Court is of a different view. But the High Court should not use its power to reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts.

Court’s Decision

The Court allowed the appeal of the judgment. In addition, it held that the High Court of Kerala has exceeded its Revisional Jurisdiction. It was by setting aside the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -