Holding

A High Court under Section 115 CPC cannot re‑appreciate evidence or supplant the factual findings of lower courts; it may interfere only if those findings are perverse or material evidence was ignored.

Summary

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Yunus Ali, sued tenant Khursheed Akram for arrears of rent and sought a provisional rent determination under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Both the trial court and the first appellate court fixed the provisional rent at Rs.400 per month. The tenant filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the High Court re‑appraised the evidence, overturning the lower courts' findings and directing a provisional rent of Rs.200 per month, stating the earlier determination was illegal. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that under Section 115 CPC a High Court cannot re‑appreciate evidence or replace concurrent findings of fact, and may interfere only where findings are perverse or material evidence has been ignored. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appellate court’s determination of Rs.400 per month was restored. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, can re‑appreciate evidence and replace the concurrent findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts.
Whether the High Court erred in directing a different provisional rent amount under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115

Subjects

Section 115 CPCrevisional jurisdictionprovisional rentRajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Actjurisdictionfindings of factperverse findingscivil appeallandlord-tenantrent control

Judgment

[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1069

t "" YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. A
v
KHURSHEED AKRAM
(Civil Appeal No. 1901 of 2003)

MAY 28, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,
·-~ JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.115 - Jurisdiction un-
der - Scope - Both Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court c
determined the provisional rent for the shop in question at the
rate of Rs.4001- p.m.- Revision petition - High Court reversed
the concurrent findings of the two courts below and directed
the Trial Court to determine provisional rent at the rate of
Rs.2001- p.m. on the premise that it was the rent last paid by
D
~
the tenant - Challenge to - Justification - Held: Justified -
~ Under s. 115, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence
and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts
below by taking a different view of the evidence - High Court
is empowered only to intetfere with the findings of fact if the
findings are perverse or there has been a non-appreciation or E
non-consideration of material evidence on record by the courts
below - On facts, the High Court acted with material irregular-

;
.. ity to intetfere with the well-merited concurrent findings and
reasonings recorded by two courts below - It lost sight of the
important fact that it was provisional determination of rent by F
the Trial Court and the eviction suit was still pending before it
for final decision.
The High Court, while allowing a civil revision peti-
tion, re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the con-
G
current findings of the courts below i.e. the Trial Court
~
and the lower Appellate Court, holding that they commit-
~ ted jurisdictional error in determining the provisional rent
for the shop in question under s.13(3) of the Rajasthan

1069 H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 at the rate
of Rs. 400/- p.m. Further, the High Court directed the Trial
Court to determine provisional rent of the very same shop
at the rate of Rs.200/-p.m. on the premise that it was the
rent last paid by the tenant-Respondent.
B Before this Court, the Appellants-landlords con-
tended that the order of the High Court was perverse, er-
roneous and illegal as the High Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction under s.115 CPC to replace concurrent find-
ings of facts with its own findings as if it was exercising
C the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Under s.115 CPC, the High Court cannot re-
appreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the con-
D current findings of the Courts below by taking a different 4-.

view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only ~
to interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are per-
verse or there has been a non-appreciation or non-con-
sideration of the material evidence on record by the courts
E below. Simply because another view of the evidence may
be taken is no ground for the High Court to interfere in its
revisional jurisdiction. [Para 15] [1076-G & H; 1077-A & B]
2. Considering all the facts and circumstances in the
....
present case, the order of the High Court cannot be sus- ..
F tained and as such is being set aside. The High Court
acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregular-
ity to interfere with the well-merited concurrent findings
and reasonings recorded by two courts below. The High
Court lost sight of the important fact that it was provisional
G determination of the amount of rent by the trial court and
the eviction suit is still pending before it for final decision.
[Para 16] [1077-B,C & D]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1901
H of 2003
YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. v 1071
KHURSHEED AKRAM [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
.,,
~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2001 of A
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at
Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revision No. 669 of 2001
Ajay Choudhary for the Appellants.
Abhijeet Sinha and Ejaz Maqbool for the Respondents. B
.... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. The subject-matter of
the challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the High Court of
Rajasthan passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.669/2001 c
on 181h July 2001 setting aside the judgments of the Courts below
where both the trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court
determined the provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950
(herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1950') at the rate of
>- D
Rs.400/-p.m. for the shop in question with effect from
r 01.06.1994 to 01.07.1999. The High Court in revision re-ap-
preciated the evidences and reversed the concurrent findings
of the Courts below and held as under: -
"Thus, the provisional determination of rent by both the E
courts below at the rate of 400/-p.m. appears on the very
face to be illegal and both the courts below have committed
jurisdictional error in determining the rent at such rate and
they should have determined the rent at the rate of Rs.200/
,,. ....
-p.m. as it was the rent last paid by the defendant-petitioner F
to the plaintiff-respondent.
For the reasons stated above, it is held that the orders
dated 16.02.2001 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and 13.07.1999 passed
by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.3, Jaipur G
City, Jaipur are contrary to the provisions of Section 13(3)
~
~ of the Act of 1950 and interference becomes inevitable
for ends of justice and they are liable to be set aside and
this revision is liable to be allowed.
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the defendant-
petitioner Khursheed Akram is allowed and the impugned
orders dated 16.02.2001 passed by the learned Addi.
District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and 13.07.1999
passed by the learned Addi.Civil Judge (J.D.) No.3, Jaipur
B City, Jaipur are set aside. The learned Addi.Civil Judge
(J.D.) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur is directed to determine .,. .,
provisional rent at the rate of Rs.200/-p.m. It is made
clear that this provisional rent is not final, but is only interim
till the final decision of the court and subject to adjustment
c as provided under Section 13(8) of the Act of 1950. No
order as to cos~s."

2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, are as
under:-

Yunus Ali, the appellant (now represented through his le- .;.,
0
gal representatives as the appellants) was owner of shop No. 2 ~
situated at House No. 242 at Nahari Ka Naka behind Khetri
House, Madina Masjid Road, Jaipur. By an oral agreement, he
leased the shop on rent to Khursheed Akram, tenant-respon-
E dent herein, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- excluding electricity
and water charges. The respondent-tenant also paid an ad-
vance amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was to be adjusted against
the instalments of rent or to be returned when tenancy will ex-
pire. On 22.01.1993, a rent deed was duly executed between
the parties on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- giving effect to the
F agreed terms and conditions of the earlier oral agreement of
monthly rental of Rs. 300/-. The agreement was executed in
the presence of the witnesses and attested by a Notary.
3. In the month of March 1994, the original landlord at the
G request of the respondent-tenant, made addition of a platform
in front of the shop with stone floor and erection of shutter over
the shop. There was agreed marginal increase of the rent
amount after the renovation was over. A fresh rent deed was
duly executed in favour of the original landlord on 01.04.1994
whereunder rent was increased to Rs. 400/- per month payable
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
..
~

A Jaipur which was transferred to the learned Additional District
Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for trial. During the course of
hearing of the appeal, the respondent-tenant produced a copy
of compromise deed dated 30.03.1993 before the Appellate
Court in support of his defence that the rent of the shop was Rs.
B 2001- per month and not Rs.400/- per month. The learned Ad-
ditional District Judge, on careful perusal of the said document, ,. f

arrived at the conclusion that the said deed pertained to shop
No. 5 and not shop No. 2 which was the subject-matter of the
suit. The learned Additional District Judge has found no error
c or illegality in the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge
and, accordingly, rejected the appeal of the respondent-tenant.

7. Thereafter, the respondent-tenant filed S.B. Civil Revi-
sion Petition No. 669/2001 before the High Court of Rajasthan,
Bench at Jaipur, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. ._
D The learned Single Judge of the High Court, as noticed earlier,
allowed the revision. • •'
8. Hence, the original landlord filed this appeal by way of
special leave. During the pendency of this appeal, the landlord
died and his legal representatives have been brought on record
E as appellants.

9. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on be-
half of the appellants, submitted that the impugned order is per-
+
verse, erroneous and illegal as the High Court has exceeded ...
F its jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC to replace concurrent
findings of facts with its own findings as if it was exercising the
jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. He contended that the High
Court has exercised its jurisdiction contrary to the well-settled
law laid down by this Court in a series of decisions that the
High Court should not interfere in the findings of facts recorded
G
by the courts below based upon proper and reasonable appre-
ciation of evidence. .... -4
10. On the other hand, Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, learned coun-
sel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant, in support of
H the order, has submitted that the High Court in exercise of its
YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. v 1075
KHURSHEED AKRAM [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
t
revisional powers vested in it under Section 115 of CPC has A
rightly interfered with the erroneous and unsustainable orders
of both the courts below and this Court normally under Article
136 of the Constitution should not interfere with the well-rea-
saned order of the High Court.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and B

" ·<I/ . ., having examined the orders of the courts below, we are of the
opinion that the High Court's order on the face of it does not
stand legal scrutiny and deserves to be set aside.

12. We do not think it proper and necessary to embark c
upon the facts of the present case in detail. Suffice it to notice
that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had entered
into oral agreement with the respondent-tenant to lease out shop
No. 2 situated at House No. 242 at Nahari Ka Naka behind
Khetri House, Madina Masjid Road; Jaipur, to the respondent-
D
>- tenant at the rate of Rs.300/- per month as rent. The expenses
• of electricity and water were also agreed to be paid separately
as pleaded by the original landlord in the plaint. In pursuance of
the oral agreement, a rent deed was executed on 22.01.1993
incorporating all the agreed terms and conditions therein. The
respondent-tenant also paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- as ad- E
vance to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, which
was agreed to be adjusted against the non-payment of rent by
the respondent-tenant or shall be returned to him at the time of
.i. vacation of the shop. The predecessor-in-interest of the appel~
!ants pleaded in the suit that the respondent-tenant failed to pay F
the rent at the agreed rate since 01.02.1993 onwards and it
was desired by him that the rental amount should be adjusted
from the advance amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the re-
spondent-tenant as security with the predecessor-in-interest of
the appellants. Accordingly, rent of 14 months from 01.02.1993 G
to 31.03.1994 was stated to have been adjusted. Some addi-
tion was made to the shop by the predecessor-in-interest of the
~
appellants at the request of the respondent-tenant and thereaf-
ter rent @ Rs.400/- per month was agreed to be paid. by the
respondent-tenant w.e.f. 01.04.1994, for which Rent Deed dated H
...
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.
.....
A 10.04.1994 was executed in the presence of the witnesses and 1

duly attested by a Notary. The amounts of two months' rent from
01.04.1994 to 31.05.1994 @ Rs.400/- per month were also
adjusted out of the advance amount and the balance amount of
rent was not paid by the respondent-tenant despite repeated
B requests and demands made by the predecessor-in~1nterest of
the appellants.
13. The respondent-tenant pleaded before the trial court y l ...
that the shop in question was given to him on rent by the prede-
cessor-in-interest of the appellants @ Rs.200/- per month and
c he had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance against the amount of rent.
On 30.03.1993, a rent deed was executed and he had paid the
rent upto January 1997, but the predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants did not give rent receipts after April 1995. The re-
spondent-tenant denied the claim of the predecessor-in-inter-
D est of the appellants that the monthly rent of the shop was ever
increased from Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- and he reiterated and re- ...
asserted that the agreed rent was Rs.200/- per month. •
14. The learned trial court, during the pendency of the evic-
tion suit and on examination of the rent deeds produced before
E him, determined the provisional rent of the shop @ Rs.400/-
per month under Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950 payable by
the respondent-tenant for a period of 61 months, i.e. from
01.06.1994 to 01.07.1999, and the total amount of arrears of
rent works out to be Rs.24,400/- on which an interest at the rate
F of 6% has been imposed. The trial court directed the respon- ""
dent-tenant to deposit the arrears of rent together with interest
in the bank account of the predecessor-in-interest of the appel-
lants and also directed the respondent-tenant to pay the rent,
as determined, regularly in the account of the predecessor-in-
G interest of the appellants. The order of the trial court has been
upheld by the first Appellate Court.
15. It is well-settled position in law that under Section 115 ..,.
of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot re-appre-
ciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent find-
H
- YUNUS ALI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS L.RS. v 1077
KHURSHEED AKRAM [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

ings of the Courts below by taking a different view of the evi- A
dence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the
findings of fact if the findings are perverse or there has been a
non-appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence
on record by the courts below. Simply because another view of
the evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to B
interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.
16. Considering all the facts and circumstances as no-
ticed above, we are constrained to hold that the order of the
High Court cannot be sustained and as such we set aside the
same. The High Court has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction C
with material irregularity to interfere with the well-merited con-
current findi~gs and reasonings recorded by two courts below.
The High Court, with respect to it, has lost sight of the important
fact that it was provisional determination of the amount of rent
by the trial court and the eviction suit is still pending before it for D
• final decision .
17. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is
set aside and the appeal is allowed, but in the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case, without any order as to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed .

•