Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007
M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the
revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the
judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment
dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in
R.C. No. 165 of 1993.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies
in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief
infra.
3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimental Bazar,
Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “suit premises” was purchased
jointly by the predecessors of the appellants herein under a registered
sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri Yellaiah, and others, which they
sold in discharge of pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment
in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District Court. Since the date
of sale, the respondents’ predecessors continued to occupy the suit
premises and thus became the tenants of the appellants’ predecessors-in-
title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- in addition to payment of property
taxes, conservancy and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated
01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in a book maintained by
the appellants’ predecessors in the regular course of business and was duly
signed by the respondents’ predecessors by way of rent every month. After
the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e., respondents’ predecessor, his
four sons became the tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate
of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are the grand children
of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who continued to occupy the suit premises as
the tenants of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped paying
rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since the rent was not being
paid in spite of repeated requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by
the appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which interim reply was
sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and
thereafter there were exchange of legal notices ensued between the
parties.
4) Since despite service of the legal notice sent by the appellants to
the respondents demanding arrears of rent, the respondents failed to comply
with the demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being R.C. No. 165
of 1993 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the
respondents under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The
eviction was sought essentially on the grounds, viz., default in payment
of monthly rent from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and
secondly denial of the appellants’ title to the suit premises.
5) Denying the allegations made in the eviction petition, the
respondents stated that the sale deed dated 20.07.1904 under which the
ancestors of the appellants had purchased the suit premises was a mortgage
with a right of re-conveyance whereas the respondents’ predecessors
continued to be the owners of the suit premises. According to them, the
suit premises was offered only as a security for borrowed amount and
subsequently their forefathers discharged the liability of borrowed amount.
However, due to some reasons, the respondents’ forefathers could not
obtain the re-conveyance of the suit premises in their name, though
ownership of suit premises remained with the respondents’ forefathers. It
was also averred that for the last fifty years, there was no payment of
rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of the suit premises
whereas their forefathers paid the property tax etc. as the owners. It was
also averred that the appellants fabricated the records to file an eviction
petition against the respondents.
6) Vide order dated 31.12.1997, the Rent Controller dismissed the
petition filed by the appellants.
7) Challenging the said order, the appellants filed first appeal being
R.A. No. 93 of 1998 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes
Court at Hyderabad.
8) By order dated 17.09.2002, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes
Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the order of the Rent
Controller directed the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant
possession of the suit premises to the appellants within two months from
the date of the judgment. It was held by the appellate Court that the
appellants’ predecessors were the owners of the suit premises on the
strength of sale deed-Ex.P.7. It was also held that the sale in question
in relation to the suit premises between the parties was not a transaction
of mortgage as alleged by the respondents but it was an outright sale in
favour of the appellants’ predecessors-in-title. It was also held that the
respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the transaction of
sale of suit premises was a mortgage and the borrowed amount having been
paid, the mortgage was redeemed. It was also held that the respondents’
predecessors were, therefore, in possession of the suit premises as tenants
and later became the appellants’ tenants by operation of law. It was also
held that the respondents failed to pay the arrears of rent from 01.06.1987
and hence they committed willful default in payment of rent rendering
themselves liable to be evicted from the suit premises under the provisions
of the Act.
9) Against the said judgment, the respondents herein filed revision
petition being C.R.P. No. 5228 of 2002 before the High Court.
10) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated
06.09.2005, allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein
and set aside the judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes
Court and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
11) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this
appeal by way of special leave.
12) Heard Mr. B. Adinarayan Rao, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
13) Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned
order urged two submissions. In the first place, he submitted that the High
Court erred in allowing the respondents’ revision petition and thereby
erred in interfering in its revisionary jurisdiction by upsetting a well
reasoned findings of facts recorded by the first appellate Court in favour
of the appellants. He further submitted that the first appellate Court
while hearing the appellants’ appeal was within its jurisdiction to probe
into all issues of facts and the evidence and record its finding de hors
the findings of the Rent Controller and once any finding of fact was
recorded by the first appellate Court then such finding is binding on the
High Court while hearing the revision against such judgment of the first
appellate Court. Learned counsel pointed out from the impugned judgment
that the High Court in this case decided the revision like the first appeal
without keeping in mind the subtle distinction between the revisionary and
the first appellate jurisdiction thereby committed a jurisdictional error
in rendering the impugned judgment.
14) In the second place, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that even otherwise, there was no justification on the part of
the High Court on facts to have reversed the well reasoned findings of fact
recorded by the first appellate Court because, according to the learned
counsel, the appellants were able to prove with adequate evidence adduced
by them that firstly, they were the owners of the suit premises and
secondly, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
predecessor-in-title of the appellants and the respondents’ predecessor-in-
title in relation to the suit premises. It was also urged that in the
eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller under the Act, the
issue of title to the suit premises could not be gone into like a regular
title suit yet the appellants adduced adequate evidence to prove their
title over the suit premises and the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties whereas the respondents failed to prove that the sale
of suit premises in favour of the appellants’ predecessors was not a sale
but was a transaction of mortgage and that their predecessor-in-title
redeemed the alleged mortgage by repaying the debt.
15) In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.
16) In contra, Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, supported the impugned judgment and prayed for its upholding
calling no interference therein.
17) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellants.
18) The Constitution Bench of this Court settled the law relating to
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding revision in rent
matters under the Rent Control Act in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (supra). Justice R.M. Lodha the learned Chief Justice
speaking for the Bench held in para 43 thus:
“43. 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. In
that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned
order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy
itself as to 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 propriety of the impugned decision
or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate
power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different
finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the
power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal. 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.”
19) It is also now a settled principle of law that the concept of
ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has
to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a
relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is
used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner
if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on
behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold
and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof
of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be
enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide
Sheela & Ors. vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375).
20) Coming now to the facts of this case, keeping in view the principle
of law laid down in the aforementioned two cases and on perusal of the
order of the first appellate Court, we find that the first appellate Court
properly appreciated the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and on
that basis recorded all necessary findings (detailed above) in favour of
the appellants. This the appellate Court could do and, in our opinion,
rightly did in the facts of this case.
21) Likewise, when we peruse the impugned order, we find, as rightly
urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the High Court did
not keep in mind the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(supra) while deciding the revision petition and proceeded to decide the
revision petition like the first appellate Court. The High Court as is
clear from the judgment probed in all the factual aspects of the case,
undertook the appreciation of whole evidence and then reversed all the
factual findings of the appellate Court and restored the order of the Rent
Controller. This, in our view, was a jurisdictional error, which the High
Court committed while deciding the revision petition and hence it deserves
to be corrected in this appeal. In other words, the High Court should have
confined its inquiry to examine as to whether any jurisdictional error was
committed by the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal. It
was, however, not done and hence interference in this appeal is called for.
22) That apart, we find that the appellants were able to prove their
ownership through their predecessor-in-title on the strength of sale deed
(Ex-P.6/7) of the suit premises whereas the respondents failed to prove
their defence. Indeed, the burden being on them, it was necessary for the
respondents to prove that the sale in favour of the appellants’ predecessor-
in-title of suit premises was a transaction of mortgage and not an outright
sale. Since the respondents did not adduce any documentary or oral
evidence to prove their defence, the first appellate Court was justified in
allowing the eviction petition. In our view, the evidence adduced by the
appellants to prove their title over the suit premises was sufficient to
maintain eviction petition against the respondents and it was, therefore,
rightly accepted by the first appellate Court.
23) As observed supra, the first appellate Court having recorded
categorical findings that the relationship of landlord-tenant was proved
and secondly, the respondents had committed a willful default in payment of
monthly rent and its arrears from 01.06.1987, these findings were binding
on the High Court while deciding the revision petition. It was more so when
these findings did not suffer with any jurisdictional error which alone
would have entitled the High Court to interfere.
24) Learned counsel for the respondents lastly argued that there was an
encroachment made by the appellants on the suit premises and document (Ex-P-
6) was inadmissible in evidence, hence the eviction petition was liable to
be dismissed on these two grounds also. These submissions, in our
considered view, deserve to be rejected at their threshold because the same
were not raised in the written statement filed by the respondents before
the Rent Controller and nor were urged at any stage of the proceedings. We
cannot, therefore, allow such factual submissions to be raised for the
first time in this appeal.
25) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the judgment
of the first appellate Court dated 17.09.2002 in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 is
restored. As a consequence thereof, the eviction petition filed by the
appellants against the respondents in relation to the suit premises is
allowed. The respondents are, however, granted three months’ time to vacate
the suit premises from the date of this order subject to furnishing of the
usual undertaking in this Court to vacate the suit premises within 3 months
and further the respondents would deposit all arrears of rent till date at
the same rate at which they had been paying monthly rent to the appellants
(if there are arrears) and would also deposit three months’ rent in advance
by way of damages for use and occupation as permitted by this Court. Let
the undertaking, arrears of rent, damages for three months and cost awarded
by this Court be deposited within 15 days from the date of this order.
26) The appeal is accordingly allowed with cost which quantify at
Rs.5000/- to be paid by the respondents to the appellants.
.……...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
………..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi,
January 18, 2016.
-----------------------
19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.167 OF 2007
M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr. ……Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the
revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the
judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small
Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment
dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in
R.C. No. 165 of 1993.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies
in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief
infra.
3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimental Bazar,
Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “suit premises” was purchased
jointly by the predecessors of the appellants herein under a registered
sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri Yellaiah, and others, which they
sold in discharge of pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment
in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District Court. Since the date
of sale, the respondents’ predecessors continued to occupy the suit
premises and thus became the tenants of the appellants’ predecessors-in-
title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- in addition to payment of property
taxes, conservancy and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated
01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in a book maintained by
the appellants’ predecessors in the regular course of business and was duly
signed by the respondents’ predecessors by way of rent every month. After
the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e., respondents’ predecessor, his
four sons became the tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate
of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are the grand children
of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who continued to occupy the suit premises as
the tenants of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped paying
rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since the rent was not being
paid in spite of repeated requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by
the appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which interim reply was
sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and
thereafter there were exchange of legal notices ensued between the
parties.
4) Since despite service of the legal notice sent by the appellants to
the respondents demanding arrears of rent, the respondents failed to comply
with the demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being R.C. No. 165
of 1993 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the
respondents under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The
eviction was sought essentially on the grounds, viz., default in payment
of monthly rent from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and
secondly denial of the appellants’ title to the suit premises.
5) Denying the allegations made in the eviction petition, the
respondents stated that the sale deed dated 20.07.1904 under which the
ancestors of the appellants had purchased the suit premises was a mortgage
with a right of re-conveyance whereas the respondents’ predecessors
continued to be the owners of the suit premises. According to them, the
suit premises was offered only as a security for borrowed amount and
subsequently their forefathers discharged the liability of borrowed amount.
However, due to some reasons, the respondents’ forefathers could not
obtain the re-conveyance of the suit premises in their name, though
ownership of suit premises remained with the respondents’ forefathers. It
was also averred that for the last fifty years, there was no payment of
rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of the suit premises
whereas their forefathers paid the property tax etc. as the owners. It was
also averred that the appellants fabricated the records to file an eviction
petition against the respondents.
6) Vide order dated 31.12.1997, the Rent Controller dismissed the
petition filed by the appellants.
7) Challenging the said order, the appellants filed first appeal being
R.A. No. 93 of 1998 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes
Court at Hyderabad.
8) By order dated 17.09.2002, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes
Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the order of the Rent
Controller directed the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant
possession of the suit premises to the appellants within two months from
the date of the judgment. It was held by the appellate Court that the
appellants’ predecessors were the owners of the suit premises on the
strength of sale deed-Ex.P.7. It was also held that the sale in question
in relation to the suit premises between the parties was not a transaction
of mortgage as alleged by the respondents but it was an outright sale in
favour of the appellants’ predecessors-in-title. It was also held that the
respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the transaction of
sale of suit premises was a mortgage and the borrowed amount having been
paid, the mortgage was redeemed. It was also held that the respondents’
predecessors were, therefore, in possession of the suit premises as tenants
and later became the appellants’ tenants by operation of law. It was also
held that the respondents failed to pay the arrears of rent from 01.06.1987
and hence they committed willful default in payment of rent rendering
themselves liable to be evicted from the suit premises under the provisions
of the Act.
9) Against the said judgment, the respondents herein filed revision
petition being C.R.P. No. 5228 of 2002 before the High Court.
10) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated
06.09.2005, allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein
and set aside the judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes
Court and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
11) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this
appeal by way of special leave.
12) Heard Mr. B. Adinarayan Rao, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
13) Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned
order urged two submissions. In the first place, he submitted that the High
Court erred in allowing the respondents’ revision petition and thereby
erred in interfering in its revisionary jurisdiction by upsetting a well
reasoned findings of facts recorded by the first appellate Court in favour
of the appellants. He further submitted that the first appellate Court
while hearing the appellants’ appeal was within its jurisdiction to probe
into all issues of facts and the evidence and record its finding de hors
the findings of the Rent Controller and once any finding of fact was
recorded by the first appellate Court then such finding is binding on the
High Court while hearing the revision against such judgment of the first
appellate Court. Learned counsel pointed out from the impugned judgment
that the High Court in this case decided the revision like the first appeal
without keeping in mind the subtle distinction between the revisionary and
the first appellate jurisdiction thereby committed a jurisdictional error
in rendering the impugned judgment.
14) In the second place, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that even otherwise, there was no justification on the part of
the High Court on facts to have reversed the well reasoned findings of fact
recorded by the first appellate Court because, according to the learned
counsel, the appellants were able to prove with adequate evidence adduced
by them that firstly, they were the owners of the suit premises and
secondly, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
predecessor-in-title of the appellants and the respondents’ predecessor-in-
title in relation to the suit premises. It was also urged that in the
eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller under the Act, the
issue of title to the suit premises could not be gone into like a regular
title suit yet the appellants adduced adequate evidence to prove their
title over the suit premises and the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties whereas the respondents failed to prove that the sale
of suit premises in favour of the appellants’ predecessors was not a sale
but was a transaction of mortgage and that their predecessor-in-title
redeemed the alleged mortgage by repaying the debt.
15) In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.
16) In contra, Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, supported the impugned judgment and prayed for its upholding
calling no interference therein.
17) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellants.
18) The Constitution Bench of this Court settled the law relating to
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding revision in rent
matters under the Rent Control Act in the case of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (supra). Justice R.M. Lodha the learned Chief Justice
speaking for the Bench held in para 43 thus:
“43. 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. In
that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned
order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy
itself as to 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 propriety of the impugned decision
or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate
power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different
finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the
power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first
appeal. 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.”
19) It is also now a settled principle of law that the concept of
ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has
to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a
relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is
used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner
if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on
behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold
and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof
of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be
enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide
Sheela & Ors. vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375).
20) Coming now to the facts of this case, keeping in view the principle
of law laid down in the aforementioned two cases and on perusal of the
order of the first appellate Court, we find that the first appellate Court
properly appreciated the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and on
that basis recorded all necessary findings (detailed above) in favour of
the appellants. This the appellate Court could do and, in our opinion,
rightly did in the facts of this case.
21) Likewise, when we peruse the impugned order, we find, as rightly
urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the High Court did
not keep in mind the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(supra) while deciding the revision petition and proceeded to decide the
revision petition like the first appellate Court. The High Court as is
clear from the judgment probed in all the factual aspects of the case,
undertook the appreciation of whole evidence and then reversed all the
factual findings of the appellate Court and restored the order of the Rent
Controller. This, in our view, was a jurisdictional error, which the High
Court committed while deciding the revision petition and hence it deserves
to be corrected in this appeal. In other words, the High Court should have
confined its inquiry to examine as to whether any jurisdictional error was
committed by the first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal. It
was, however, not done and hence interference in this appeal is called for.
22) That apart, we find that the appellants were able to prove their
ownership through their predecessor-in-title on the strength of sale deed
(Ex-P.6/7) of the suit premises whereas the respondents failed to prove
their defence. Indeed, the burden being on them, it was necessary for the
respondents to prove that the sale in favour of the appellants’ predecessor-
in-title of suit premises was a transaction of mortgage and not an outright
sale. Since the respondents did not adduce any documentary or oral
evidence to prove their defence, the first appellate Court was justified in
allowing the eviction petition. In our view, the evidence adduced by the
appellants to prove their title over the suit premises was sufficient to
maintain eviction petition against the respondents and it was, therefore,
rightly accepted by the first appellate Court.
23) As observed supra, the first appellate Court having recorded
categorical findings that the relationship of landlord-tenant was proved
and secondly, the respondents had committed a willful default in payment of
monthly rent and its arrears from 01.06.1987, these findings were binding
on the High Court while deciding the revision petition. It was more so when
these findings did not suffer with any jurisdictional error which alone
would have entitled the High Court to interfere.
24) Learned counsel for the respondents lastly argued that there was an
encroachment made by the appellants on the suit premises and document (Ex-P-
6) was inadmissible in evidence, hence the eviction petition was liable to
be dismissed on these two grounds also. These submissions, in our
considered view, deserve to be rejected at their threshold because the same
were not raised in the written statement filed by the respondents before
the Rent Controller and nor were urged at any stage of the proceedings. We
cannot, therefore, allow such factual submissions to be raised for the
first time in this appeal.
25) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the judgment
of the first appellate Court dated 17.09.2002 in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 is
restored. As a consequence thereof, the eviction petition filed by the
appellants against the respondents in relation to the suit premises is
allowed. The respondents are, however, granted three months’ time to vacate
the suit premises from the date of this order subject to furnishing of the
usual undertaking in this Court to vacate the suit premises within 3 months
and further the respondents would deposit all arrears of rent till date at
the same rate at which they had been paying monthly rent to the appellants
(if there are arrears) and would also deposit three months’ rent in advance
by way of damages for use and occupation as permitted by this Court. Let
the undertaking, arrears of rent, damages for three months and cost awarded
by this Court be deposited within 15 days from the date of this order.
26) The appeal is accordingly allowed with cost which quantify at
Rs.5000/- to be paid by the respondents to the appellants.
.……...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
………..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi,
January 18, 2016.
-----------------------
19
