Holding

The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana, Kerala and Tamil Nadu Rent Control Acts is confined to testing the legality, regularity and propriety of the order and may interfere only where the finding of fact is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or results in a gross miscarriage of justice; it cannot re‑appreciate evidence to reach a different factual conclusion.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑appreciate evidence and overturn factual findings of the first appellate authority on the ground of "legality or propriety". The Court held that revisional power is limited to ensuring that the order is "according to law" – i.e., free of procedural illegality, perversity, or a finding without evidential basis – and does not permit a fresh assessment of facts. Accordingly, the High Court’s revision order that had re‑appreciated evidence was set aside and the order of the appellate authority affirmed. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for disposal by regular benches in line with the clarified scope of revision.

Issues considered

The extent of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the three Rent Control Acts, specifically whether it includes the power to re‑appreciate evidence and alter factual findings of the first appellate authority.
The meaning and ambit of the terms "legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety" in the context of revisional powers.

Legislation cited

Subjects

revisional jurisdictionrent control legislationlegality and proprietyappellate vs revisionhigh court powersevidence re‑appreciationstatutory interpretationprocedural regularity

Judgment

(2014) 14 S.C.R. 1379 •

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. A
v.
DILBAHAR SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004)
B
AUGUST 27, 2014
[R. M. LODHA, CJI, DIPAK MISRA, MADAN B. LOKUR,
KURIAN JOSEPH AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Jurisdiction - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court -
As provided under Rent Control Acts of Haryana, Kera/a and C
Tamil Nadu - Ambit and scope of - Held: The scope of
revisional jurisdiction provided under provisions of the Acts
confines the power of the High Court to interfere with the
finding of fact recorded by first appellate court/authority, only
to the extent offinding out that the finding offact recorded by D
court below did not suffer from any error- It cannot interfere
with finding of fact in order to take a different view exercising
its power as a court of appeal - Haryana Urban (Control of
Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - s. 15(6) - Kera/a Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - s. 20 - Tamil Nadu E
Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960-s. 25 - Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 115.
Words & Phrases:
Term 'legality or propriety' - Extent, scope, ambit and F ·
meaning of, in the context of s. 15(6) of Haryana Urban
(Control of Rent &Eviction) Act, 1973.
Term 'regularity correctness, legality and propriety' -
Extent, scope, ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 25
of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960.. G
Term 'legality, regularity or propriety - Extent, scope,
ambit and meaning of, in the context of s. 20 of Kera/a
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
H
1379
1380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1
[2014) 14 S.C.R.

A Answering the referred question, the Court
HELD: 1. Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a
part of appellate jurisdiction, but it is not vice-versa.
Both, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
8 an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the case
may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive
with that of the trial court. ·Ordinarily, appellate
c .jurisdiction involves re-hearing on facts and law but such
jurisdiction may be limited by the statute itself that
provides for appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand,
revision is· not continuation of suit or of original
proceeding. When the aid ofrevisional court is invoked
on the revisional side, _it can interfere within the
D permissible parameters provided in the statute. As
regards the extent of appellate or revisionaljurisdiction,
·much would, however, depend on the language
employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction
and revisional jurisdiction. [Para 25][140.3-E~H;
E 1404-A-B]
/

2. Where both expressions "appeal" and "revision"
are employed in a statute, obviously, the expression
"revision" is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower
-F jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression
"appeal". The use of two expressions "appeal" and
"revision" when used in one statute conferring appellate
power and revisional power, is not without purpose and
significance.· [~ara 32][1405-D·E]
G 3. The observation in Ram Dass case that as th(il
expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is
"legality and propriety'', the High Court has wider
jurisdiction obviously means that the power of revision
vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the
H power conferred on it under Section 115 CPC; it is not
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1381
DILBAHAR SINGH

confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in A
dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of.
findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself
thatthe decision is"according to law". *Ram Dass case
does not lay· down as a proposition of law that the·
revisional power of the High Court under the Rent B
Control Act is as wide as that of the Appellate Court'.
[Para 33][1406-D-E, G]
4. The word "propriety" does not confer power
upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come
to a different conclusion but its consideration of C
evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and
propriety of the order impugned before it. The view of
this Court in **Rukmini case is approved. [Para 39]
[1409-A-B]
D
5. None of the three Rent Control Acts of H.aryana,
Kerala and Tamil Nadu entitles the High Court to interfere
with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate
Court/First Appellate Authority on the ground that on re-
appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from E
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 F
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 G
result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to
correction because it is not treated as a finding according
to law. The High Court is entitled to sa~isfy itself 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 H
. 1382 SUPREME COURT REPO_RTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High
Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power
to re-appreciate or re-assess the evid1mce for coming to
a different finding on facts. Where' the High Court is
required to be satisfied that the decision is according to
B law, It may examine whether the order impugned before
it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.
[Para 45][1410-B-H] ' · · ' .~
**Rukmini Amma Saradamm:a ·v. Kailyahi
. Sulochana and others 1.992 (3) Suppl. SCR 579 :
c (1993) 1 SCC 499; Dattonpant Gopalvarao
Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval 1975
(0) Suppl. SCR 67: (1975) 2 SCC 246; Moti Ram
v. Suraj Bhan and others 1960•SCR 896: AIR ~,
1960 SC 655; Mis. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing
D Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar(1980)
4 SCC 259; P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal
1987 (Supp) SCC 250; Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan
v. Punjab National Bank 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675;
. Ubaiba v. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC .. 645; .T.
E Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and.
Ors. 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 143 : (1999) 7 sec .
275; V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and
Ors (2006) 9 SCC 606; Olympic Industries v. Mui/a ·
· Hussainy Bhai .Mui/a Akberally ~and Ors. 2009
F (1 O) scR 338 : (2009) 15 sec 528 - approved. · ··
*Ram Dass v. lshwar Chander and others 1988
(1) Suppl. SCR 239 : AIR 1988 SC 1422; H. V.-
Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam 1970 (1)
SCR 345; (1969) 2 SCC 194; Rai Chand Jain v.
G . Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla 1990 (3 ) Suppl.
· SCR 91•(1991) 1SCC422;· ShivSarup Gupta v:a' ·
Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 (3) SCR 1260:.,,, ,
(1999) 6 SCC 222; Ram Narain Arora \t. Astia"·
Rani and Ors. 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 188: (1999) u. ·
,. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1383
. ' . . DILBAHARSINGH'' "·. ;;-'•i•.,;

~.H 1SCC141; M.S. Zahed v.. K. Raghavan 1_998 (3)
. . Suppl. SCR 217: (1999) 1SCC439; Ramdoss. ',r,
A
-
.~; ;'"'.~-~- Thangave/u1999 (5) Suppl.· SCR 1 : (~~O~)· u·:.
~ . &Co.
<, ·-,.,.2 SCC.135; Shaw Wallace ' Ltd. v. Govmdas
- . . •.· ~- ~ ~

•.. Purushothamdas and Anr. 2001 (2) SCR 134 :· .· ' ·
·' . r (2001) 3 SCC 445 -·explained . . . ' · ; ' •·» B
!•.).. . ~ • ' . . . . ;i

· ·, Central Tobacco Company v. Cflandra
. Prakash. _.....
.. '. -

1969 UJ 432; Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay,['ee. • :r;
Gee Investments and Anr. 1990 (2) Suppl. •
scR 2s1: (1991) f sec 343; M. s. Zahed v. ·K.
,Ragha'van 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 217: (1999) 1 c
sec 439; - referred to.
CASE LAW REFERENCE
1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 579 approved Para 1
explained Para 1 D
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 239
1960 SCR 896 approved Para 1
1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 67 approved Para 10
(1980) 4 sec 259 approved Para 11
E
1987 Supp. sec 250 . approved Para 12
1970 (1) SCR 345 explained Para 14
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 91 explained Para 14
1995 supp. (4) sec 675 approved Para 15 F
1999 (3) SCR 1260 exp_lai11ed Para 16
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 188 explained Para 17
1998 (3) Suppl. SC.R 217 · explained · Para 18
G
1969 UJ 432 referred to Para 18
. 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR251 ·referred to, Para 18
~• r • ~ I ; '• ·

(1999) 5 sec 645 · ·approv~d. ·Para 19
·' • > If r
1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 143 al>proved' Para 20 H
1384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 explained ·Para 21
2001 (2) SCR 134 explained Para 22
(2006) 9 sec 606 approved Para 23
2009 (10) SCR 338 approved Para 24 1

B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6177of2004.
From the judgment and order dated 11.02.2004 passed
in Civil Revision No. 4230 of 2001 by the High Court of Punjab
c & Haryana at Chandigarh.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2162 and 7491 of 2004
·Civil Appeal Nos. 6954, 7520 and 7066 of 2005
Civil Appeal Nos. 2901, 5212, 2859 an.d 1224 of 2006
Civil Appeal No. 3313 of 2007
SLP (C) No. 22248 of 2007
. SLP (C) No. 34303 of 2009
E
SLP (C) No. 11931 of 2011
Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., Parijat Sinha, Ms. Reshmirea
Sinha, sunil Murarka, S.C. Ghosh, K.K. Mani, Manoj Swarup,
M.T. George,A.T.M. Sampath, Ms. T.S. Shanthi, ShakilAhmed
F Syed, M/s. K.J. John & Co., Nikhil Jain, Gagan Deep Sharma,
Vikram Singh Gulia, Ms. Preeti Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, Prem
Malhotra, Jayanth Muth Raj, Roy Ibraham, Ms. Malavika J.
Nishe Rajen Shonker, R. D. Upadhyay, C.N. Sree Kumar, Ms.
Resmitha R. Chandran, M.A. Chinnasamy, S. Muthu Krishnan,
G · A. Subba Rao, K.L.D.S. Vinober and Arun Pratap Shah, Advs.,
with him for the Appellant.
P.H. Parekh, C.S. Rajan, Sr. Advs., N.S. Dalal, D.P.
Singh.A. Rein (for Mr. R.C. Kaushik), M.A. Krishna Moorthy,
H Praveen Kumar, S:S. Bandyopadhyay, Mohan Pandey, R.V.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1385
DILBAHAR SINGH

Kameshwaran, A. Raghunath, Shankar Divate, Romy Chacko, A
A.T.M. Sampath, Ms. T.S. Shanthi, Prem Malhotra, Ms. Shalu
Sharma, V. Mohana, B. Raghunath, Vijay Kumar, Balbir Singh
Gupta, K. Rajeev, S. Thananjayan and Ms. D.V. Padma Priya,
Advs., with them forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

R. M. LODHA, CJL 1. This group of eleven appeals and
three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5~Judge
Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench
decisions one, Rukmini 1 and the other, Ram Dass2 • Ram c
Dass2 has followed Moti Ram 3 . At the time of hearing of Civil
Appeal No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with
the meaning, ambit and scope of the words "legality and·
propriety" under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (C.ontrol D
of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Haryana Rent
Control Act'), was confronted with the question whether the
High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could
interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/
first appellate authority. The appellant relied upon the decision E
of this Court in Rukmini1 in support of its contention that the
revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On··
the other hand, the respondent pressed into service the
decision of this Court in Ram Oass2 wherein it has been held
that the. expression "legality and propriety" enables the F
revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering
the findings of the first appellate Court. The 2-Judge Bench
felt that there was conflict in the two decisions and for its·
resolution referred the matter to the larger Bench. In the
Reference Order (dated August 27, 2009), the 2-Judge Bench G
observed, thus:
1
RukminiAmma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993)
1sec4991
2 Ram Dass v. lshwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422)
3
Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655] H
. ~-·. ~- J ·,,..._-' r· . '~{ . :
. "
1386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
'

,A ' . '; - : "Lea~ned couns~I for the appellant ·has placeci~~liance
~._,
_ on_ a three Judge E}ench decision of this Court iri i'lie case
_ 'of Rukmini Am ma Saradamriia Vs: Kallyani Sulcichana
·"P 'And Others (1993) 1' sec 499 Wherein Section - 20
1 '' ,'~-. : of, ihe Kerala Rerit Control :Act was in question.
B :,~'.", h\/Vas tield inlhe said decision that though Section 20 of
..,/ ' ' ' " ..
; . . - ' .. . . . .
_ : ·_ Jhe said Act provided that the tevisional court can go •into
>.J'l;V ' tti'e "'•propriety'_ Of ' the • Order i but it - does l hot
1

;;I entifle the reViSionai COUrt to re-appreciate· evidence.
A similar view was taken by a two Judge bench ofthis
c Court in the case of Ubaiba Vs. Damodaran (1999) 5
sec. 645.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent
has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Ram Dass Vs. lshwar Chander and Others AIR 1988 SC
D · 1422 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
-jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence while
considering the findings of the first appellate Court. A
E similar view was taken by another three Judge Bench of
this Court in the case of Moti Ram Vs. Suraj Bhan and
others AIR 1960 SC 655.
From the above it is clear that there are conflicting views
, of coordinate three Judge Benches of this Court as to
F
the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression
'legality and propriety' and whether in revisional
jurisdiction the High co·urt can re-appreciate the
evidence. Hence, we are of the view that the matter
G": l'>:q needs to. _be. considered
_ " .... "
by.
a larger bench since
._,. ; . , ~- - ,
this
_.. ___ . question arises [n a:'• la_rge
·jl•\.1,,1_,·· ~·<;,,·;~
number of cases as similar
.. , r . tr·.··•

;,,rn
1 ~'" provi~ions ~onfe_rrin_g poW~r ~f. rey~~1icin exi~ts_ in various
,, rent control and other leg1slat1ons, e.g. Section 397 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. ' Accordingly, we direct

H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1387
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

that the papers .be placed before Hon'ble The Chief A
Justice for constituting a larger Bench."
·2. There are other appeals/SLPs in this group of matters,
some of which arise from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Kerala Rent Control
Act') and the few appeals/SLPs arise from the Tamil Nadu B
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, 'the
Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act'). These appeals/SLPs following
the Reference Order in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation have
also been referred to the 5-Judge Bench. This is how these
matters have come up before us. c·
3. It is appropriate to first notice the statutory provisions.
pertaining to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the
above three Rent Control Acts. These provisions are not
similar to Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure which D
confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court in the matters
arising from the Courts governed by the Code.
4. Section 15 of the Haryana Rent Control Act provides
for appellate and revision al authorities. This provision in.the
Haryana Rent Control Act reads as under: E
"15. Appellate and revisional authorities.-(1) The State
Government may, by a general or special order, by
notification,.confer on such officers and authorities as it
may think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the
purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of F
cases as may be specified in the order.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the
Controller inay, within thirty days from the date of such
order or such longer period as the appellate authority G
may allow for reasons t6 be recorded in writing, prefer
. . , an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having
. ' jurisdiction. (n computing the period of thirty days the;·
me
taken to obtain a certified copy of the order a~pea d
against shall be excluded. · "- . H
1388 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A (3) On such appeal being preferred, the appellate
authority may order stay of further proceedings in the
.matter pending decision on the appeal.
(4) Jhe appellate authority shall decide the appeal after
. sending for the records of the case from the Controller
B and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard
and, if necessary, after making such further inquiry as it
. thinks fit either personally or through the Controller..
(5) The decisions of the appellate authority and subject
c to such decision, the order of the Controller shall be final
and shall not be liable to be called in question in any
court of law except as provided in sub-section (6) of this
section.
(6) The High Court as revisional authority, may at any
D time, on its own motion or on the application of.any
aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days,
call for and examine the record relating to any order
-passed or proceedings taken un.der this Act for the·
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety
E of such order or proceedings and may pass such order
in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the
period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified
copy of the order shall be excluded."
5. In the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, Section 23 and
F Section 25 provide for appeal and revision, respectively. Since
we are concerned with the scope of revisional power, it is not
necessary to reproduce the appellate provision. Section 25,
which deals with revisional power, reads as under: .
"25. Revision.-(1) The High Court may, on the
.G
application of any person aggrieved by an order of the
Appellate Autho;-ity; call for and examine the record of
the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity
of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or
propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if,
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1389
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.].

in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such A
decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed
or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders
accordingly.
(2) Every application to the High Court for the exercise
of its power under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within B
one month from the date on which the order or proceeding
to which the application relates is communicated to the
applicant: •
Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow c
further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any
such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had
sufficient cause for not preferring the application within
the time specified in this sub-section."
6. The.provision for appeal is contained in the Kerala D
Rent Control Act in Section 18 while Section 20 of that Act
deals with the revision al jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Kerala
Rent Control Act reads as under:
"20. · (1) In cases where the appellate authority
empowered under section 18 is a Subordinate judge, E
the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may,
at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party,
call for and examine the records relating to any order
passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such
authority for th!'l purpose of satisfying itself as to the F
legality, regularity or propriety of such order or
proceedings, and may pass such order in reference
thereto as it thinks fit.
(2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings before G
the High Court or District Court under sub-section (1)
shall be in its discretion."
7. A careful reading of the text of the above three
provisions will show that under Section 15(6) of the Haryana
H
1390 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1 (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Rent Control Act, the High Court as revisional. authority, may
suo motu or on the application of an aggrieved party, call for
and examine the record relating to any order passed or
proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satisfying
.itselfas to the legality or propriety of such order or pioceedings
B arid may pass such order as it may deem fit. The Ta.mil Nadu
Rent Control Act provides that the High Court on the application
of an aggrieved person may call for and examine the record of
the appellate authority to satisfy itself as to the regularity of
such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of
c any decision or order passed therein. The High Court in
exercise of its revisional power may modify, annul or reverse
the order or decision impugned before it or remit the matter
for re-consideration. In the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the
High <;:ourt has no power to act suo motu. The Kerala Rent
D Control Act provides that the High Court on the application of
an aggrieved party may call for and examine the record relating
. to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act for
the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality; regularity or
propriety of such order or proceedings and. pass any order
E that it deems fit. Like the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the
Kera la Rent Control Act also does not empower the High Court
to act suo motu. Though, there is some difference in the
language of the revisional provision in the above three statutes
but, in our opinion, the revisional power of the High Court under
F the above Rent Control Acts is substantially similar and not
significantly different.
8. Before we embark upon an inquiry to find out the ambit .
and scope of the revisional power of the High Court under these
Rent Control Acts, we may quickly observe that in this reference,
":G we have to really determine the extent, scope, ambit.and ·
· meaning of the terms '.'legaliJy or propFiety", "regul~rity,
correctness, legality or propriety" and ,"legality, regularity.or
propriety". Obviously, this will determine the extent of_ the
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the respective
H Rent Control statutes and will also include the consideration
' HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. · 1391
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

of the question whether the High Court in exercise of its A
revisionaljurisdiction can re-appreciate the evidence in order
to find out the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned
order cir decision. .
9. The scope of revisiorial jurisdiction under various Rent
Control Acts has fallen for consideration in many cases before B
this Court. One of the earlier decisions in the long line of such
cases is Moti Ram3 • The 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Moti
Ram 3 had an occasion to consider the extent of revisional
power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Ptmjab
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949) which reads: C
" ... The High Court may, at any time, on the application of
any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine
the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken
under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may D
pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit." Having
regard to this provision, the Court rioted the revisional power
0f the High Court in the following words:
" ... the revisional power conferred upon the High Court E
under Section 15(5) is wider than that conferred by
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under
Section 15(5) the High_ Court has jurisdiction to examine
the legality or propriety of the order under revision and
that would clearly justify the examination of the propriety F
or the legality of the finding made by the authorities ... "
10. Before we refer to the other cases of this Court, we
feel that the. weighty observations made by the 2-Judge Bench
in Dattonpant4 may be noted. The Court while dealing with
findings of fact recorded by the appellate court under the G
Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 referred to Section 50 of that
' ACtwhich conferred upon the HighCourtrevisional power. The
Court observed:
4
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval;
[(1975) 2 sec 2461 H
13.92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - • [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A "It is true that the power conferred on the High
. '
Court under Section 50 is not as narrow as the revisional
power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. But at the same time it is not wide
enough to make the High Court a second court of first
B appeal."
(emphasis supplied by us)
11. In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works 5 , the 2-Judge
Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Section 25
c ofTClmil Nadu Rent Control Act followed Dattonpant.4 and while
doing so, the Court also articulated the distinction between
"appellate jurisdiction" and "revisional jurisdiction". In
paragraph 2 (page 261 of the Report), ihe Court stated as
follows:
D "2. 'Appeal' and 'revision' are expressions of common
usage in Indian statute and the distinction between
'appellate jurisdiction' and 'revisional jurisdiction' is well
known though not well defined.· Ordinarily, appellate
jurisdiction involves a rehearing, as it were, on law as
E well as fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. Such
jurisdiction may, however, be limited in some way as, for
instance has been done in the case of second appeal
under the Code of Civil Procedure, and under some Rent
Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again, revisional
f jurisdiction is analogous to a power of superintendence
and may sometimes be exercised even without its being
invoked by a party. The extent of revisional jurisdiction is
defined by the statute conferring such jurisdiction. The
conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the
G purpose of keeping tribunals subordinate to the revising
Tribunal within the bounds of their authority to make them
act according to law, according to the procedure
established by law and according to well defined
5 Mis. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy
H Chettiar; [(1980)4 SCC 259]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1393
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

principles of justice. Revisional jurisdiction as ordinarily A·
understood with reference to our statutes is always
included in appellate jurisdiction but not vice versa. These
are general observations. The question of the extent of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction has to be considered
in each case with reference to the language employed B
by the statute."
While dealing with revisional power under Section 25 of
the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the Court said in paragraph
3 (page 262 of the Report) as under:
c
"The language of Section 25 is indeed very wide. But we
must attach some significance to the circumstance that
both the expressions 'appeal' and 'revision' are employed
in the statute. Quite obviously, the expression 'revision'
is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower D
jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression
'appeal'. In fact it has to be noticed that under Section
25 the High Court calls for and examines the record of
the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself. The
dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words E
'to satisfy itself' under Section 25 appears to be that the
power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is
essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore,
despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the
High Court quite obviously should not interfere with F
findings of fact merely because it does not agree with
the finding of the subordinate authority. The power
conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act may not
be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in G
the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattonpant Gopa/varao
Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; "it is not
wide enough to make the High Court a second Court of
first appeal".
H
;1394 SUPREME COURT REPORJS' . i [20J4] t14 ~;q.R.

·A Pertinently, in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works
~
5
. , the Court
-~

said in unequivocal words that concurrent findingsdJpsed on
evidence, cannotbe touched upon by the.High Cou~exercising
jurisdiction
- . '
under Section 25 of the
- ' . -Tamil
. -Nadu Rent Control
~ ,.
Act. ~. ·
B 12. In Krishnamachari6 , the Court followed Sri Raja
Lakshmi Dyeing Works 5 while considering the scope of
revisional power under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent
Control Act.
c 13. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Dass2 was
concerned with the revisional power of the High Court under
Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
1949. Inter alia, the Court noted the earlier judgments of this
Court in Dattonpant4 and Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works 5
0 and observed as under:
"On the first contention that the revisional powers do
not extend to interference with and upsetting of findings
offact, it needs to be observed that, subject to the well
known limitations inherent in all revisionaljurisdictions,
E the matter essentially turns cin the language of the statute
investing the jurisdiction. The decisions relied upon by
Shri Harbans Lal, deal, in the first case, with the
limitations on the scope of interference with findings of
fact in second appeals and in the second, with the
F limitation on the revisional powers where the words in
· the statute limit it to the examination whether or not the
order under revision is "according to law". The scope of
the reVisional powers of the High Court, where the High
Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is
G "according to law" is considered by Beaumont, C.J. in
Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj (AIR 1938 Bom 223)
;;· . a case referred to with approval byJhis Court in Hari
• Shankarv. Girdhari Lal Chowdhury
. (,A.IR1963
. SC 698)
• P:RKriShnamachari v. Lalitha Amrhal; [1987 (Supp) sec 250]
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1395
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

But here, Section 15(5) of the Act enables the High A
Court to satisfy itself as to the "legality and propriety" of
the order under revision, which is, quite obviously, a much
wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction enables the court of
revision. in appropriate cases. to examine the
correctness of the findings of facts also. though the B
revisional court is not "a second court of first appeal"
(emphasis supplied by us)
14. In Rukmini 1, the scope of revisicinal power under
Section 20 of the Kera la Rent Control Act fell for consideration c
before a 3-Judge Bench. The Bench considered the provision
of Section 20 of that Act, vis-a-vis, Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and held as under:
"As far as the present Act is concerned Section 20
contains the word "propriety" also. As to the meaning of D
the word "propriety" in Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State
ofMadras(1956 SCR256) at page 264 it was held thus:
''The word 'propriety' has nowhere been defined in the
Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. In the
Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated E
to mean 'fitness; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability;
appropriateness to the circumstances or conditions;
conformity with requirements, rule or principle;
rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy'."
F
Therefore, the question would be whether in the context
of this provision· the High Court was right in re-
appreciating the evidence and coming to a different
conclusion? In the impugned judgment in paragraph 7
the High Court observed: G
"Under Section 20 of the Act though re"appreciation
of the evidence as such is not called for, the pleadings
and evidence have to be examined to satisfy the
legality, regularity of the order of the lower authorities.".
H
1396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A We are afraid this approach of the High Court is wrong.
Even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot
enable the High Court to act as a firs.tor a second court
of appeal. Otherwise the distinction between appellate
and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the
B High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire
evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the
Commissioner's report (Exts. C-1 arid C-2 mahazar). In
our considered view, the High Court had travelled far
beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence
c of the word "propriety" it cannot mean that there could be
a re-appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional
court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-
appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining
itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order
o 'impugned before it. Therefore, we are unable to agree
with the reasoning of the High Court with reference to
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction."
While holding as above, the 3-Judge Bench also referred
to the decisions of this Court in H. II. Mathai' and Rai Chand
E Jain". In H. II. Mathai', this Court observed that the words of
Section 20 are much wider than those in Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. It was also observed that on the
words of Section 20, it could not be held that the revision was
limited to a mere question of jurisdiction. In Rai Chand Jain 8 ,
F relying upon Ram Dass 2, the Court observed:
" ... The High Court in exercising its power under Section
15(5) of the said Act is within its jurisdiction to reverse
the findings of fact as the same were improper and also
illegal. It is appropriate to refer in this connection to the
G decision in the case of Ram Dass v. lshwar Chander
where it has been held that Section 15(5) of the Act .
enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the "legality
or propriety" of the order under revision, which is, quite
7 H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam; [(1969) 2 SCC 194]

H • Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla; [(1991) 1SCC422]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1397
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

obviously, a much wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction A
enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to
examine the correctness of the findings of facts also,
though the revisional court is not 'a second court of first
appeal..."
15. In Sankaranarayanan9 , the Court had an occasion . B
to consider the scope of powers of revisional Court· under
Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. The 2-Judge
Bench which heard the matter observed that it was improper
for the High Court to consider the revision petition under ·
Section 25 a~ if it were a second appeal. The Court firmly , 9.
stated that the findings of the first appellate Court could riot be
reversed upon a reassessment of the evidence.
16. In Shiv Sarup Gupta 10 , this Court with reference tb
the revision al jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25- D
B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, though reiterated
that the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-
appreciation of evidence merely because.it is inclined to take
a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts, but
also held that the High Court is obliged to test the order of the E
Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according
to law" and, for that limited purpose, may enter into reappraisal
of evidence, i.e., for the purpose· of ascertaining whether the
conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly
unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with
objectivity could have reached on the material available. The F
Court observed that ignoring the weight of evidence,
proceeding on a wrong premise of law·or deriving such
conclusion from· the established facts as betray a lack of .
reason and/or objectivity. would render the finding of the
Controller "not according to law" calling for an interference under · .G
the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
9
Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp.,(4) <
' sec 6751 . · · · ' ·.··
10
Shiv Sar'up Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; [(1999) 6 SCC 222] ·
1398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' [2014] 14S.C.R
' '

•
A 17. Again in Ram Narain Arora 11 , a.?-Judge Bench with
reference to revisional power under Seciion 25-s:of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 observed as follows: · · · ·
"It is no doubt true that the scope of a revision petition
under Section 25-8(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control
B Act is a very limited one, but.even so in examining the
legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Rent
Controller, the. High Court could examine the facts
available in order to find out whether he had correctly or
on a firm legal basis approached' the matters on record
c to decide the case. Pure fit1dings of fact may not be open ·
to be interfered with, but (sic if) in a given case, the finding
of fact is given on a wrong premise of law, certainly it
would be open to the revisional court to interfere with
such a matter. In this case, the Rent Controller proceeded
D to analyse the matter that non-disclosure of a particular
information was fatal and, therefore, dismissed the claim
made by the landlord. It is in these circumstances that it
became necessary for the High Court to re-examine the
matter and then decide the entire question. We do not
E think that any of the decisions referred to by the learned
counsel decides the question of the same nature with
-which we are concerned. Therefore, detailed reference
·to them is not required."
F 18. The scope of the High Court's revisional power under
Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 came
to be considered by a 2-Judge Bench .of this Court in M.S.
Zahed12 • The provision (Section 50) under consideration reads,
"The High Court may, at any time call for·and examine any
order passed or proceeding taken by (the Court of Small
G C~uses or the Court of the Civil Judge) under this Act or any
order passed by the Controller Under Sections 14, 15, 16 or
17 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
11 Ram Narain Arora v.Asha Rani and Ors.; [(1999) 1SCC141]

H. 12 M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan; [(1999) 1 SCC 439]
.. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v.
, . DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.] ...

correctness of such order or proceeding and may pass such A
order in reference thereto as it thinks fit." The Court, while
observing that revisional power cannot ·be equated with the
power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of
first appeal, held that still the nature of the revisionaljurisdiction
of the High Court under Section 50 of the Act will have to be B
considered in the light ofthe express provisions of the· statute
concerning such power. On the express language of Section
50(1) of the Act, the Court observed that it cannot be said that
the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into the:question of
correctness of findings of fact reached by the Court of Small C
Causes on relevant evidence. The Court considered a couple
of decisions of this Court, (1) Central Tobacco Company13
and (2) Bhoo/chand14 and ultimately concluded that the High
Court in revision under Section 50 of the Act was entitled to
. re-appreciate the evidence with a view to finding out whether D ·
the order of the Court of Small Causes was legal or correct.
· 19. In Ubaiba 15 , a 2-Judge Bench of this Court, while
dealing with revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, considered the
meaning of the expression 'propriety'. The Court held that in E
re-appreciating the evidence, the High Court had exceeded
its revisional jurisdiction. This is.what the 2-Judge Bench said:
"Mr. K Sukumaran, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant contended that however wide
F .
the jurisdiction of the revisional court under the Act in
question may be, but it cannot have jurisdiction to
reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding
upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority
and therefore the impugned order of the High Court is
unsustainable in law. In support of this contention reliance G
has been placed on adecision of this Court in the case
13
Central Tobacco Company v.'Chandra Prakash; [1969 UJ 432]
14
Bhoolchand andAnr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr.; [(1991) 1
SCC343J
15
Ubaiba v. Damodaran; [(1999) 5 SCC 645] H
1400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A of Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulocharia
(1993) 1 sec 499 whereunder the selfsame provision
of the Kerala Act was under consideration. This Court
after noticing the word "propriety" used in Section 20
came to the conclusion that the approach of the High
B Court was totally wrong and even the wider language of
Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to
act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise the
distinction between appellate and r'evisional jurisdiction
will get obliterated. The Court also further observed "even
c by the presence of the word 'propriety' it cannot mean
that there could be any reappreciation of evidence". The
learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
contended that the aforesaid decision will have no
application to the case in hand where the dispute involved
D relates to a jurisdictional fact and according to the
learned counsel where the dispute is in relation to a
jurisdictional fact there should not be any fetter on the
power of the revisional court even to reappreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion. On being
E asked to support the aforesaid proposition no authority
could be placed though on first principle learned counsel
for the respondent argued as aforesaid. Having examined
the rival submission and having gone through the decision
of this Court referred to earlier we are of the considered
. F opinion that though the revisional'power under the Rent
..
Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure it cannot be equated even with the second·
appellate power conferred on the civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure. Noiwithstanding the use of the
G expression "propriety" in Section 20, the revisional court
therefore will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence
and substitute its own conclusion in place of the
conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the
· impugned judgment of the High Court in the light of the
aforesaid.ratio of this Court it is crystal clear that the High
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1401
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJL]

Court exceeded .its jurisdiction by reappreciating the A
evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the
relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. In the
circumstances, the impugned revision al order of the High
Court is wholly unsustainable and we set aside the same
and the order of the appellate authority is affirmed." 'B
20. The scope of power of revision under Section 25 of
the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act also fell for consideration
before a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in T.
Sivasubramaniam16 • The Court in paragraph 5 (page 279 of
the Report) held as follows: C
"5. So far as the second submission is concerned, the
language employed in Section 25 of the Act, which
confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, is very
wide. Under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court can D
call for and examine the record of the appellate authority
in order to satisfy itself as to regularity of such
proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of
any decision or orders passed therein. The words "to
satisfy itself' employed in Section 25 of the Act no doubt E
is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not
require_d to interfere with the finding of fact merely
because the High Court is not in agreement with the
findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power
exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 of the
Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess F
the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to
the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a
finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no
evidence, the High Cciurtwould be justified in interfering · G
with such a finding recorded by the courts below. In the
present case what we find is that neither has the landlord
set out his need or requirement for the premises for his
occupation in his petition nor has he led any evidence to
16
T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; [(1999) 7
s~2n H
j.
' '
1402. SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A • ...: , . show that his need is bona fide. In the absence of such
. evidence, .the, Rent Controller and . the. first appellaie
·,,,I

, .. authority acted contrary to law in allo.wing the petition of
_"' , the landlord by directing the eviction of .the 'tEinahts. In
c ~,; ·,_.! .sµch
~ . . .
circumstances,
'
the
. •
High CourtI was
.
fully
, .
justified in
,;. , '

B ~.,,;_:· interfwing with .the findings of the courts below, We.
therefore, reject the secorid submission of l~arned
counsel." · • ·
· 21. In Ramdoss 17 , this Court again had an occasion to
. consider the scope of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent
C Control Act. Relying upon Sankaranarayanan 9, the Court held
that the revisional power of the High Court under Section 25 of
· the Act not being an appellate power, it is impermissible for
the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition
filed under Section 25 of the Act. The Court did not accept the
D argument that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact recorded by
the Courts below.
22. In Shaw Wallace 18, a 2-Judge Bench of this Court
E relied upon M.S. Zahed12 decision of .this Court and held in
.paragraph 13 of the Report as follows:'
' .
''1;3. On a plain reading of Section 25 of the Act, it is
clear that the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High
Court under that section is wider than Section 115 of the
F Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court is entitled to
satisfy itself as to the regularity of the proceeding, of the
correctness, legality or propriety of any deeision or order
passed therein and if, on examination, it appears to the ·
High Court that any such decision or order should be
modified, annulled,. reversed or remitted for
reconsideration, it may pass such orders accordingly."
23. The scope of revisional power under Section 20-of
the Kerala RentControl Act fell for consideration in V.M.
17 Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu; [(2000) 2 SCC.135]

H . 18 Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and Anr.; [(2001)
3 sec 4451
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1403
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M~ LODHA, CJI.]

Mohan 19 • The Court while allowing the appeal set aside the A
order of the High Court as it found that the High Court had re-
appreciated the evidence to come to the conclusion different
from the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. The Court
observed that as the revision application was concluded by
concurrent finding of fact recorded by the original authority as B
well as the appeliate authority, no interference by the High Court
was called for. . . .
24. In Olympic lndustries 20, this Court, while dealing with
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of
the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, observed that the High Court C
could interfere with concurrent orders of the tribunals in
revisional jurisdiction only if their findings are perverse or
arbitrary and irregular or improper.
25. Before we consider the matter further to find out the D
scope and extent of revision al jurisdiction under the above three
Rent Control Acts, a quick observation about the 'appellate
jurisdiction' and 'revisional jurisdiction' is necessary.
Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of appellate
jurisdictioi:i but it is not vice-versa. Both, appellate jurisdiction E
and revisional jurisdiction are creatures of statutes. No party
to the proceeding has an inherent right of appeal or revision.
An appeal is continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the
case may be. The power of the appellate court is co-extensive
with that of the trial court. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction F
involves re-hearing on facts and law but such jurisdiction may
be limited by the statute itself that provides for appellate
jurisdiction. On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though,
is a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it cannot be
equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. In other words, G .
revision is not continuation of suit or of original proceeding.
When the aid of revisional court is invoked on the revisional
side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters
19
V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9 SCC 606)
20
Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors.;
[(2009) 15 sec 5281 H
;1404 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A· provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision
is provided against an order passed by the tribunal/appellate
authority, the decision of the revisional court is the operative
secision in law. In our. view, as regards the extent of appellate
orrevisionaljurisdiction, much would, however, depend on the
B language employed by the statute conferring appellate
jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction .
. 26: With the above general observations, we shall now
·endeavour to determine the extent, scope, ambit and meaning
·. ofthe.terms.",legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness,
C legality or p~opriety" and "legalitY, regularity or propriety" which
are used in three Rent Control Acts under consideration.
· 27. The ordinary meaning of the word 'legality' is
lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or
0 doctrine; the quality of being legal.
·. 28. The term 'propriety' means fitness; appropriateness,
aptitude;·suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or
condition conformity with requirement; rules or principle,
·. rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy.
E .. c29. The terms 'correctness' and ;propriety' ordinarily
.. convey the same meaning, that is, something which is legal
and proper. In its ordinary meaning and substance,
'correctness' is compounded of 'legality' and 'propriety' and ·
that which is legal and proper is 'correct'.
F
30. The expression "regularity'' with reference to an order
ordinarily relates to the procedure being followed in accord
with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
31. We have already noted in the earlier part of the
G judgment that although there is some differen~e in the language
employed by the three Rent Control A,cts under consideration
which provide for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the
revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is
·... su~stantiallysimilar
.. . .and broadly such power has the .same .
.
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1405
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.)

scope save and except the power to invoke revisional A
jurisdiction suo motu unless so provided expressly. None of
these statutes confers on revisional authority the power as wide
as that of appellate court or appellate authority despite such
power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration B
does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional
jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision
does not lie under these provisions to bring tl'le orders of the
Trial Court/Rent Controller and Appellate Court/Appellate
Authority for re-hearing of the issues raised iri the original c
proceedings.
32. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in
Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works 5 that where both expressions
"appeal" and "revision" are employed in a statute, obviously,
the expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of a· much D
narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression
"appeal". The use of two expressions "appeal" and "revision"
when used in one statute conferring appellate power and
revisional power, we think, is not without purpose and
significance. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a re- E
hearing while it is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction
when the same statute provides the remedy by way of an
'appeal' and so also of a 'revision'. If that were so, the revisional
power would become co-extensive with that of the trial Court
or the subordinate Tribunal which is never the ca.se. The classic F
statement in Dattonpant4 that revisional power under the Rent
Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under
Section 115 of the Code but, at the same time, it is not wide
enough to make the High Couri a second Court offirst appeal,
commends to us and we approve the same. We are of the G
view that in the garb of revisional jurisdiction under the above
three Rent Control Statutes, the High Court is not conferred a
status of second Court offirst appeal and the High Court should
not enlarge the scope of revisional jurisdiction to that extent. ·
H
1406 SUPRf:ME COURT-REPORTS [2014] 14S.C.R.

A 33. Insofar as the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Ram Dass.2 is concerned, it rightly observes that revisional
power, is subject to well-known limitations inherent' in all
reyisional jurisdictions and the matter essentially turns on the
language of the statute investing the jurisdiction. We do not
Ei think that there can ever be objection to the above statement.
The controversy centers round the following observation in Ram
Dass2 , " ••• that juri13diction enables the Court of revision, it]
appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings
of facts also .. _.". It is suggested that by observing so, the 3-
C Judge Bench in Ram Dass 2 has enabled the High Court to
intei-fere with the findings of fact by re-appreciating the
evidence. We do not think that the 3-Judge Bench has gone
to that extent in Ram Dass 2 • The observation in Ram Dass2
that as the expression used conferringrevisional jurisdiction
o is "legalitY and propriety", the High Court has wider jurisdiction
obviously means that the power of revision vested in the High
Court in the statute is wider than the power conferred on it
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; it is not
confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in dealing
E with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of fact by
the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is
"according to law". This is expressly stated in Ram Dass 2 •
Whether or not a finding of fact recorded by the subordinate
court/tribunal .is according to law, is required to be seen on the
F touchstone whether such finding of fact is based on some legal
evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the
evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence
altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or
such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. Ram
G Dass2 does not lay down as a proposition of law that the
revisional power of the High .Court under the Rent Control Act
is as wide as that of the Appellate Court or the Appellate
Authority or such power is co-extensive with that. of the
Appellate Authority or that the concluded finding of fact
H · recorded by the original Authority or the Appellate Authority
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD: v.. 1407
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJL]

can be intertered with by the High Court by re-appreciating A
evidence because revisional courVauthority is not in agreement
with the finding Of fact recorded by the CourVAuthority below.
Ram DC1ss 2 does not exposit thaf the ·revisional power
conferred upon the High Court is as Wide as an appellate power
to' re-appraise or re-assess the evidence for comirig to a 13
different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Courf/
Authority below. Rather, it emphasises thatwhile examining
the correctness of findings of fact, the revision al Court is not
the second Court of first appeal. Ram Dass2 does not cross
the limits of revision al court as explained in Dattonpant4. c
34. Rai Chand Jain 8 that follows Ram Dass 2 also does
not lay down that t.he High Court in exercise of its power under
the Rent Control Act may reverse the findings of fact merely
because on re-appreciation of the evidence it has a different
view on the findings of fact. The observations made by this D
Court in Rai Chand Jain 8 must also be read in the context we
have explained Ram Dass2 •
35. In Shiv Sarup Gupta 10, the observations of this Court
with reference to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under E
the Delhi Rent Control Act that the High Court, on the touchstone
of"whether it is according to law" and forthat limited purpose,
may enter into reappraisal of evidence must be understood in
the context of its observations made preceding such
observation that the High Court cannot enter into appreciation F
or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to
take a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts
and the observations following such observation that the
evidence is examined by the High Court to find out whether
CourVAuthority below has ignored the evidence or proceeded . G
on a wrong premise of law or derived such conclusion from
the established facts which betray lack of reasons and/or
objectivity which renders the finding not according to law. Shiv
Sarup Gupta 10 also does not lay down the proposition of law
that in its revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act, the
H
1408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A High Court can rehear on facts or re-appreciate the evidence
to come to the conclusion different from that of the trial Court
or the appellate Court because it has a different view on
appreciation of evidence. Shiv Sarup Gupta 10 must also be
understood in the context we have explained Ram bass2 •
B 36. The observations in Ram Narain Arora 11 that in
examining the 'legality' or 'propriety' of the proceedings before
the Rent Controller, the High Court could examine the facts
available must be understood forthe purpose stated therein,
namely, in order to find out that the fin di rig of facts are based
.G on firm legal basis and are not given on a wrong premise of
law. Ram Narain Arora 11 also lays down that pure findings of·
fact are not for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
37. The statement in M.S. Zahed 12 that under Section
0 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the High Court is entitled
to re-appreciate the evidence with a view to find out whether
the order of Small Causes Court is legal and correct must be
understood in light of the observations made therein, namely,
that revision.al power cannot be equated with the power of re-
E consideration of all questions of fact as a ~ourt of first appeal.
38. Shaw Wallace 18 has relied upon M.S. Zahef} 12 and
observed that the High Court is enti.tled to satisfy itself as to
the regularity of the proceeding, of the correctness, legality or ·
propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, on
F examination, it appears to the High Court that any such decision
or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted
for reconsideration, it may pass such order accordingly. In Shaw
Wal/ace 18 , this Court does not,lay down that the High Court
can re-appreciate·the evidence to come to conclusion different
G from the court/authority below as the appellate Court.
39. Rukrriini1 hoids, and in our view, rightly that even the
· widerJarlguage of Section 20 of the Ker.ala Rent Control Act
does not 'enable the High Court to act as a first or a second
·. colirt of appeal. We are in fu·11 agreement with the view of the
H
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1409
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

3-Judge Bench in Rukmini1 that the word "propriety" does not A
confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence
to come to a different conclusion but its consideration of
evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety
of the order impugned before it. We approve the view of this
Court in Rukmim". B
40. The observation in Sankaranarayanan 9 that the
revisional Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent
Control Act cannot reverse the findings of the first appellate
Court upon a reassessment of evidence is in line with.Rukmim"
and we approve the same. C
41. Similarly, the view in Ubaiba 15 , which has followed
Rukmini1 that, under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control
Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re-appreciate
the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the D
conclusion of the Appellate Authority is the correct view and
gets our nod.
42. In T. Sivasubramaniam 16 this Court has held that
under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, the'High
Court does not enjoy an appellate power to reappraise or E
reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary
to the finding recorded by the courts below. This view is the
correct view and we approve the same.
43. The observation in Ramdoss 17 that the High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate F
court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to
reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section
25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini 1 and
Sankaranarayanan 9• Its observation that the High Court can
interfere with incorrect finding of fact must be understood in G
the context where such finding is perverse, based on no
evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has
been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material
evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed
to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice. Ramdoss 17 H
'1410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS, - : [2014].14 S.C.R.
_,,.. • • '~ : ""'. • t .. '~

A does not hold that the High Court may interfer~ with th~_findings
offact because on re-appreciation.of the evidence its view is
·different from that of-the first Appellate Court or Authority.
44. The decision of this Court in V.M. Mohan'" is again
•in line with thejudgment of this Court in Rukmini'.
B
·- 45. We hold, as we must, that rione ofthe 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.re-appreciation of the evidence, its view
c 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
0 recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been
arrived at without consideration of the material evidel')ce 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 ofjustice, is open to
E correction because it is not treated as a finding according to
law. In that event, the High Gciurt 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 the correctness or
F 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 re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence
G 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
H before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. v. 1411
DILBAHAR SINGH [R. M. LODHA, CJI.]

46. We, thus, approve the view of this Court in RukminP A·
as noted by us. The decision of this Court in Ram Dass2 must
be read as explained above. The reference is answered
accordingly.
47. Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions shall now
be posted before the regular Benches for decision in light of '.B
the above.

Kalpana K. ·rripathy Referred question answered.