P.R.Krishnamachari Vs. Lalitha Ammal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1532 of 1978.
Petitioner: P.R.Krishnamachari
Respondent: Lalitha Ammal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1532 of 1978.
Judges: A.P.SEN & V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 24, 1987
Head Note:
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (RENT AND CONTROL) ACT, 1963
Section 25 – revisional power – Scope and extent of revisional power of High Court under Section 25 – Power conferred on High Court is essentially of a supervisory nature and not as narrow as the revisional power under section 115 of CPC.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
The short point raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in interferring with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the Courts below under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Control) Act, 1963. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this Court had occasion to define the scope and extent of the revisional power of the High Cout under the said section in the case of M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works & Ors. v.Rangaswamy Chettiar. This Court has held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Act is essentially of a supervisory nature, as it may call for the records of the Courts below with a view to determine only the legality and proprietory of the orders passed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, that test is not obviously fulfilled. There is no discussion at all in the judgment which we are sorry to say is rather perfunctory. We are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the revision petition for rehearing. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds, and is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside. The Revision Petition is remanded to the High Court for disposal afresh according to law. The High Court will endeavour to dispose off the Civil revision petition expeditiously and in any event, not later than four months from today.
Appeal dismissed.
The short point raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in interferring with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the Courts below under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent and Control) Act, 1963. The power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 of the Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But this Court had occasion to define the scope and extent of the revisional power of the High Cout under the said section in the case of M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works & Ors. v.Rangaswamy Chettiar. This Court has held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Act is essentially of a supervisory nature, as it may call for the records of the Courts below with a view to determine only the legality and proprietory of the orders passed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, that test is not obviously fulfilled. There is no discussion at all in the judgment which we are sorry to say is rather perfunctory. We are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the revision petition for rehearing. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds, and is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside. The Revision Petition is remanded to the High Court for disposal afresh according to law. The High Court will endeavour to dispose off the Civil revision petition expeditiously and in any event, not later than four months from today.
Appeal dismissed.
