Rent Control Revision- HC Can't Re-appreciate Oral Or Documentary Evidence On Record: SC [Read Order]

In the context of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Supreme Court has reiterated that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate oral or documentary evidence on record.

The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran was considering an appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court order in a revision petition that set aside concurrent orders of the courts below. 

The bench in Daya Rani vs. Shabbir Ahmed referred to an earlier judgment in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana wherein scope of revisional powers under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act was examined by the Apex Court. In the said judgment, it was held that even by the presence of the word "propriety" in Section 20 of the Act, 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 impugned before it, it was held in Rukmini Amma Saradamma. The court also referred to the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh. It observed:

The law is thus well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court can not reappreciate the evidence on record: both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law.

The bench then set aside the High Court judgment holding that it does not spell out or advert to any perversity in the findings rendered either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority. 

Click here to Read/Download Order