TRILOK SINGH CHAUHANversusRAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.

                      [2017] 12 S.C.R. 441


                   TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN                                 A
                                  v.
                  RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 20833 of 2017)
                       DECEMBER 11,2017                                 B

          [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, .TJ.]
        Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -.s.25 - Scope of
revision under - Suit filed by appellant-landlord against respondent-
te11a11t - Decree of eviction passed by Trial Court - Respondent
filed Revision before High Court which was allowed holding that
                                                                         c
rate of rent was Rs.2501- p.m. and not Rs.15001- p.m. as held by the
Trial Court - On appeal, held: High Cou11 committed error in setting
aside the findings of the trial court on the rate of rent - Pure finding
of fact based on appreciation of evidence not to be interfered with
in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.25 of 1887 Act except on limited D
grow1ds - Present is not a case where High Court set aside the
finding of the Trial Court on any of such grounds where Revisional
 Court uls. 25 can interfere - High Court committed error in setting
aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court - Judgment of
High Court is set aside and decree of Trial Court is restored - Rent
                                                                         E
Control and Eviction.
       Rent Control and Eviction - Pleadings - Suit filed in Small
Causes Court by landlord, for recovery of rent with compensation,
in respect of suit shop on the ground that respondent had not paid
the rent from December, 2000 - Formal prayer for eviction added
                                                                        F
in the suit by landlord by way of amendment - Plea of tenant that
landlord waived his right of claiming eviction in the notice and also
in the suit and thus, the prayer for eviction added by amendment
was barred by limitation - Held: Plea of tenant not tenable - In the
notice dtd. 07.09.2001, the landlord insisted 011 termination of
tenancy and contemplated eviction of the tenant - Fu11her, prayer G
for eviction which was formally added by amendment cannot be
said to be barred by time since suit was filed i11 the year 2001 itself
- Thus, in the instant case, there was no waiver of relief of eviction
either in the notice given by the landlord to the tenant or in the suit
- Waiver.
                                                                        H
                                  441
        442           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 12 S.C.R.


        A           Pro11incial Small Cause· Courts Act, 1887 - s.25 - Re11ision
              under - Scope of, as against u/s.115, CPC - Discussed - Code of
              Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115.
                    Allowing the appeal, the Court
                    HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded by the Trial Court were
        B based on evidence brought on record. However, High Court,
              did not refer to the factors which weighed the Trial Court in coming
              to the conclusion that rate of rent was Rs. 1500/- per month.
              High Court committed an error in setting aside the findings of
              the Trial Court on the rate of rent. [Para 11] [447-E-G]
        c       1.2 The High Court was exercising the juris.diction under
          Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
          Jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act is wider than the
          Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. But pure finding
          of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be interfered
        D with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887.
          There arc very limited grounds on which there can be interference
          in exercise of jurisdiction unde•· Section 25; they are, when (i)
          Findings are perverse or (ii) .based on no material or (iii)
          Findings have been arrived at upon taking into consideration the
          inadmissible evidences or (iv) Findings have been arrived at
        E without consideration of relevant evidences. Present is not a
          case where High Court set aside the finding of the Trial Court on
          any of above grounds where. Rcvisional Court under Section 25
          can interfere. High Court has not even referred to the reasons
          given by the Trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the
        F rate of rent is Rs. 1500/ per month. [Paras 12, 14 and 15] [447-
          G; 449-D-F]
                    2.1 Further, from the avcrmcnts of notice dated 07.09.2001
              brought on record by the appellant- landlord, it is clear that
              tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated eviction of
         G    the respondent-tenant. Thus, the landlord was clearly insisting
              on termination of the tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of
              action of not handing over of the possession. Thus, there is no
              question of the waiver of eviction. The prayer of eviction whi<;h
              was formally added by amendment cannot be said to be barred by
              time since suit was filed in the year 2001 itself. It was clearly
         H    pleaded in the plaint that in spite of the service of notice neither


    I
'
 TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                           443
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

payment of balance amount of rent was made nor the possession               A
of the shop was given to the respondent even after terminating
the tenancy. Formal prayer was already added in the plaint
seeking possession of shop after eviction which amendment was
allowed by the High Court . In these circumstances, it cannot be
held that there was any waiver of relief of eviction either on the          B
notice or in the suit. [Paras 19, 20] (450-G-H; 451-A-B, E-F]
      Hari Shankar & Ors. v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury
      AIR 1963 SC 698 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 933 ; Mundri
      Lal v. Sushi/a Rani (Smt) & Ant: (2007) 8 SCC 609 :
      [2007] 10 SCR 99 - relied on.
                                                                            c
                         Case Law Reference
      [1962] Suppl. SCR 933            relied on         Para 13
      (2007] 10 SCR 99                 relied on         Para 14
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20833                   D
of2017.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 of the High Court
ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Civil Revision No. 32 of2010.
     Subhro Sanyal, Kawaljit Singh Bhatia, Kumar Rajiv, Ms. Jigyasa
Tanwar, M.P. Shorawala, Advs for the Appellant.                             E
     Mohit Paul, Gurmeet Singh, Puneet K. G., Anugrah Niraj Ekka,
Advs for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against              F
the judgment dated 26.08.2014 of High Court of Uttarakhand in Civil
Revision No. 32 of2010 by which judgment High Court has allowed the
Revision and set aside the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes
Court directing the eviction of the respondent-tenant with recovery of
rent and damages. The landlord aggrieved by the judgment has come
up in this appeal.                                                          G
      2. Brief facts of the case, necessary to be noted for deciding this
appeal are:
     The appellant is the owner of Shop No. 46 Adarsh Gram Chauhan
Market, Yatra Bus Station, Rishikesh. The respondent is carrying on         H
444            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A     business of clothe merchant in the shop as tenant. A notice dated
      07.09.2001 was issued that respondent has not paid the rent of above-
      mentioned shop from December, 2000 till present date. The rate of rent
      was claimed as Rs. 1500/- per month. Notice was given to pay the
      whole outstanding rent with interest within one month from the receipt
      of the notice, failing which tenancy shall be treated as terminated. After
 B
      prescribed period damages at the rate of Rs. 501- per day were also
      claimed. As notice was not replied, the appellant filed a Small Causes
      Case No. 32 of 2001 in the Court of Additional District Judge praying
      for recovery of rent with compensation and expenses and any other
      relief. The written statement was filed by the respondent where he denied
 c    the rate of rent to be Rs. 1500/- per month. It was stated that the rate of
      rent is only Rs. 250/- per month and since October 1994, he is carrying
      on business of clothe. It was stated that the plaintiff has already received
      the rent for the month of August, 2001 but he did not issue any receipt.
      Appellant has stopped to receive the collection of rent from September,
      2001. The respondent forwarded the toti1l rent of Rs. 1250/- for the
 D
      period of September, 2001 to January, 2002 at the rate of Rs.250/- per
      month through money order which was denied, stating that 'it is denied
      to accept due to this amount is less than the actual amount'. Respondent
      pleaded that premises is covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Trial
      Court by order dated 13.05.2004 framed ten issues. An application for
 E    amendment was filed by appellant for adding a prayer 'that the plaintiff
      may be given possession of disputed shop which is stated in the list of
      property annexed at the end of the plaint after evicting the respondent
      from the above shop'. The amendment application was although rejected
      by the Trial Court on 25.4.2007, but the High Court by an order dated
      05.08.2008 allowed the amendment application subject to payment of
 F    cost of Rs. 3000/-.
             3. High Court also allowed three week's time to respondent to file
      amended written statement. Additional counter statement was filed by
      the respondent. Trial Court framed an additional issue on 20.0 l .2009
      which is to the following effect:
 G
             "1. Whether the plaintiff has waived to oppose for eviction in his
             notice dated 07 .09 .2001 '!If yes, whether the required relief added
             by the plaintiff is barred to the limitation as stated in the additional
             counter statement."

 H
 TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                              445
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       4. Parties Jed their evidences before the Trial Court including the     A
documentary evidences. Trial Court after considering the evidences of
the parties decided issue No. 1 in favour of the appellant that rate of rent
is Rs.1500/- per month. Other issues were also decided in favour of the
appellant, consequently, the Trial Court passed a decree of eviction against
the respondent-tenant with balance amount of payment of rent and
                                                                               B
damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day.
        5. Aggrieved by the above-said judgment, the respondent filed a
Revision before the High Court. The Revision filed by the respondent
was under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1887'). The High Court vide its
judgment allowed the Revision and set aside the judgment and decree of         C
the Trial Court holding that rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month and not
Rs. 1500/- per month. High Court also made observation against the
landlord that the motive of landlord is to secure the possession back and
profit hunting.
       6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court        D
committed error in upsetting the findings of fact regarding rate of rent
which was held by the Trial Court as Rs. 1500/- per month but reversed
by the High Court holding it to be Rs. 250/- per month only. It was
further stated that the tenant is in possession of shop for nineteen years
and although tenancy was terminated by landlord after one month of the         E
service of the notice, appellant could not get the possession of the shop.
The counsel for the appellant referring to Page No. 88 and 89 of the
paper book submits that Trial Court has given cogent reasons and
considered relevant evidence for recording a finding that rate of rent is
Rs. 1500/- per month which has been set aside by the High Court.
                                                                               F
       7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, refuting the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
Trial Court while decreeing the suit had not adverted to the additional
issues which were framed by the Trial Court on 20.01.2009. He submits
that Trial Court having not adverted to additional issues, the Revisional
Court has rightly set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and      G
dismissed the suit.
      8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
both the parties and perused the record.

                                                                               H
446             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 12 S.C.R.



A            9. The basis of judgment of the High Court in setting aside the
      judgment of the Trial Court is the reversal of the findings regarding rate
      of rent. As noted above, the case of the plaintiff was that the rate of
      rent is Rs. 1500/- per month whereas the case of the tenant was that
      rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month. The High Court while coming to
      the conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month gave following
B
      reasonings:
            "I have perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and find
            the force in the argument so submitted by the learned counsel of
            the revisionist and instead remanding the case and lingering this
            old litigation further between the parties, I am of the view that no
 c          rent due was payable to the landlord at the time of issuing the
            notice dated 07.09.2001. Relatively, the oral testimony of the
            landlord is rebutted by the oral testimony of the tenant, revealing
            the fact that the tenanted premises was taken on the rent to the
            tune of Rs. 250/- per month with a payment of premium of Rs.
D           I ,20,000/- wherefor no receipt was issued by the landlord to the
            revisionist. The fact can not be over sighted that this is in quite
            prevalent practice in such matters that the landlord takes the lump
            sump premium from the tenant, as has been taken in the instant
            case. After taking such a hefty premium, the rent must not be
            more than what it has been stated way back in the year 1994.
 E
            No additional reliable testimony has been brought by the landlord
      on record to create the force in his pleadings."
              IO. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to findings of
      the Trial Court at Page No. 88 and 89. It is useful to refer to the.discussions
 F    made by the Trial Court deciding the Issue No. 1, which issue was
      whether the respondent is tenant in the disputed shop of the plaintiff for
      the rate of rent, a sum of Rs. 15001- per month? The discussion of the
      Trial Court at Page No. 88 to 90 is as follows:
             " .... .In support of the above statement, the plaintiff produced the
             Evaluation List for the period 2004-2009 issued by the Executive
 G
             Officer, Nagar Palika, Rishikesh vide document no. 96Ga. Though,
             it also clearly proves that the rent of above disputed property is
             equaled to Rs. 1500/- per month. The respondent has not filed
             any documentary evidence to oppose the above fact which it can
             be proved that the rent of the above disputed shop is equaled to
 H           Rs. 250/- per month in place of Rs. 1500/- month.
  TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                              447
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            It clearly proves from the statements of the above witnesses        A
       and the documentary evidence available on record that any written
       agreement regarding the rent of the questioned property has neither
       been made between the parties nor filed any rent receipt by the
       respondent against the payment of rent though it is accepted by
       both the parties that the plaintiff himself used to come at shop for     B
       the collection ofrent and the respondent used to acknowledge the
       entry of this payment of rent in his diary at the shop.
             The respondent ought to have proved this fact that the rent
       of the above questioned shop was equaled for sum of Rs. 250/-
       per month. The respondent should have produced the above diary,
       which was important documentary evidence and having under                c
       the possession of the respondent and the signatures of the plaintiff
       were also taken in this diary, therefore, the adverse presumption
       shall be taken against respondent u/s 114 of the Evidence Act due
       to having not to produce the above diary. This fact cannot be
       proved by the respondent; therefore, after analyzing the above           D
       facts, I am of the view that there is not present any ground to
       disbelieve the statement of the plaintiff in which he stated .the rent
       was equaled for sum of Rs. 1500/- per month ..... "
        11. The findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on
 evidence brought on record. A reference to Evaluation List for the             E
 period 2004-2009 by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rishikesh vide
 document No. 96Ga was also mentioned. Trial Court has further drawn
 an adverse inference against respondent that he had not produced the
 diary in which acknowledgment of the entry of the payment of rent was
 made by the appellant. The entire discussion of the High Court as
 extracted above, does not refer to above two factors which weighed             F
·that the Trial Court in. coming to the conclusion that rate of rent is Rs.
 15001- per month. We thus are of the clear opinion that High Court
 committed an error in setting aside the findings of the Trial Court on the
 rate of rent.
       12. The High Court was exercising the jurisdiction under Section         G
25 of the Act, 1887 which provision is as follows:
       "Sec. 25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small
       Causes:

                                                                                H
448            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A                The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a
            decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small
            Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass
            such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit."
            13. The scope of Section 25 of the Act, 1887 came for
B     consideration before this Court on several occasions. In Hari Shankar
      & Ors. Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698, in Para
      Nos. 9 and I 0, this Court laid down the following:
            "9. The section we are dealing with, is almost the same as Section
            25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section has
 c          been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse
            interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer




 D
            would make a broad spectrum commencing, at one end, with the
             view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it,
            and ending, at the other, with a power of interference a little better
            than what an appeal gives. It is useless to discuss those cases in
            some of which the observations were probably made under
                                                                                     -
            ·compulsion of certain unusual facts. It is sufficient to say that we
            consider that the most accurate ex.position of the meaning of such
            sections is that of Beaumont, CJ. (as he then was) in Bell & Co.
             Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj, (1938) 40 Bom LR 125: (AIR 1938 Bom
 E           223) where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with Section 25 of
             the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed:
               "The object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see
               that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision
               was given according to law. The section does not enumerate
 F             the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does
               Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do
               not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the
               circumstances which may justify such interference; but
               instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which
               the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction, or in which
 G             the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not
               have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party
               has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the
               burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders.
               Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the
 H
 TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                             449
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law,     A
          then the Court can interfere. But, in may opinion, the Court
          ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the
          Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion
          which the High Court would not have arrived at."
      This observation has our full concurrence.                              B
      10. What the learned Chief Justice has said applies to Section 35
      of the Act, with which we are concerned. Judged from this point
      of view, the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering
      with a plan finding of fact and more so, because he himself
      proceeded on a wrong assumption."                                       c
        14. Another judgment which needs to be noted is judgment of this
Court in Mundri Lal Vs. Sushi/a Ra11i(Smt) & Am:, (2007) 8 SCC
609. This Court held that jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887
is wider than the Revisional Jurisdiction under Section i 15 C.P.C. But
pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be             D
interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under 'Section 25 of the Act,
1887. The Court also explained the circumstances under which, findings
can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25. There
are very limited grounds on which there can be interference in exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 25; they are, when (i)         Findings are
perverse or (ii) based on no material or (iii) Findings have been arrived     E
at upon taking into consideration the inadmissible evidences or (iv)
Findings have been arrived at without consideration of relevant evidences.
       15. Present is not a case where High Court set aside the finding
of the Trial Court on any of above grounds where Revisional Court
under Section 25 can interfere. High Court has not even referred to the       F
reasons given by the Trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the
rate ofrent is Rs. 1500/per month. We thus are of the view. that judgment
of the High Court is unsustainable.
       16. The submission which has been much pressed by the learned
counsel for the respondent is that Trial Court has not adverted to the        G
additional issues which were framed by the Judge, Small Causes Court
after allowing the amendment. The additional issue was as to whether
the plaintiff has waived to oppose for eviction in his notice dated
07.09.2001 and whether the prayer for relief added by the plaintiff is
                                                                              H
450             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 12 S.C.R.



A     barred by limitation. The notice dated 07.09.2001 brought on record by
      the appellant as Annexure P.1. Notice after setting out facts and claim in
      last paragraph states as follows:
             "Therefore, you are hereby given the notice that you should pay
             the whole outstanding rent of my client from December 2000 to
 B           till today at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month with interest within
             one month from the date of receipt of this notice and the tenancy
             be. terminated and shall be treated as terminate after passing above
             prescribed period. You shall also be liable to pay the compensation
             at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day to my client after passing the above
             limitation and the suit will be filed against you before the competent
 c           court, for which you will be sole responsible for all the costs and
             expenses. You should pay the expenses of notice for sum of Rs.
             5001-. You are informed hereby that the copy of this notice has
             been put into custody at my office for further need. The second
             copy of this notice is being forwarded to you through U .P.C. Post."
 D            17. The notice clearly contemplated the termination of the tenancy
      after expiry of one month. It is relevant to note that the High Court in its
      judgment has noted the arguments ofrevisionists regarding non-decision
      of the additional issues. The High Court noticed the aforesaid submission
      in following words:
 E           "Learned counsel of the revisionist has vehemently argued that
             none of such added point of detennination has been dealt with by
             the court below in the body of the judgment, much less any finding
             on either of them .... "
             18. High Court although noted the above submission but has not
 F    proceeded to examine the above contention or recorded any finding in
      favour of the respondent. Trial Court had already framed Issue No. 9 to .
      the following effect: "Whether the plaintiff has any right to evict the
      respondent from the disputed property?" The issue, was answered in
      favour of plaintiff.
G           19. Although, the above argument was not adverted by the High
      Court but since the respondent has raised the argument before us, it is
      necessary to consider the above-said argument. The additional issue as
      noticed above is as to whether by notice dated 07 .09.2001 the landlord
      has waived his right of eviction. From the averments of notice, as quoted
      above, it is clear that tenancy was terminated and landlord contemplated
H
 TRILOK SINGH CHAUHAN v. RAM LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.                              451
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

eviction of the tenant. We thus are of the view that there is no question      A
of the waiver of eviction. The prayer of eviction which was formally
added by amendment can not be said to be barred by time since suit was
filed in the year 2001 itself. It was clearly pleaded in the plaint that in
spite of the service of notice neither payment of balance amount of rent
has been made nor the possession of the shop has been given to the
                                                                               B
respondent, even after, terminating the tenancy. In para 4 of the plaint
following was stated:
       "4. That the tenancy of the respondent had been terminated by
       the plaintiff through above notice but the above shop of the plaintiff
       had neither been vacated nor entrusted the possession by the
       respondent. The respondent did not receive this notice deliberately. c
       The denial of acceptance of the service of above notice was
       recorded on the envelope of above registered post. It was
       necessary to file the above case due to non-compliance of above ·
       notice, do not make the payment of balance amol)nt of rent and
       do not delegate the possession of the shop to the plaintiff by the · D
       respondent even after terminating tenancy."
       20. Thus, the landlord was clearly insisting on termination of the
tenancy and was also mentioning a cause of action of not handing over
of the possession. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it
cannot be held that there was any waiver of relief of eviction either on       E
the notice or in the suit. Formal prayer has already been added in the
plaint seeking possession of shop after eviction which amendment was
allowed by .the High Court in its judgment dated 05.08.2008. We are
thus of the view that High Court committed an error in setting aside the
judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court.
                                                                               F
       21. In result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the
High Court is set aside and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court is
restored. The parties shall bear their own costs. ,


Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.   G