HC Can't Reappreciate Evidence In Revision Under Section 29(2) Of Bombay Rent Act; Power Is Supervisory: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that revision under Section 29(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act against rent court's orders has a narrow scope, prohibiting the high court to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings, preventing it from becoming a Second Appeal and ensuring quick finality of rent dispute. 

In doing so the court explained that High Court's power is supervisory and interference limited to cases where there is a clear/obvious and error apparent on the face or legal flaw on the lower Court's order. 

Justice JC Doshi in his order observed :

"This Court, under the revisional jurisdiction, is therefore, restrained from re-appreciating the evidence and re-appreciating the facts of the case, the Court has to find out that any error of law has been committed by the learned Court below, which goes to the root of the case. The revisionist, who insists the Court to interfere with the concurrent finding arrived by the learned Courts below has to establish that the learned Courts below have committed manifest error of law on the face of record. The narrow scope of Revision under Section 29(2) of the “Rent Act” does not permit the High Court to reappreciate the evidence or substitute findings, essentially preventing it from becoming a Second Appeal and ensuring quick finality of rent dispute.

Mainly the High Court's power is supervisory, focused on the jurisdiction. Interference is totally limited to cases where there is a clear/obvious and error apparent on the face or legal flaw on the lower Court's order or judgment. No re-appreciation of evidence is permitted to the High Court in revision, and it generally won't interfere with the concurrent factual finding or substitute its own view of the evidence if the lower Court's finding are supported by the material evidence. So, Section 29(2) of the “Rent Act” is a specific, limited remedy and not a routine second appeal. In essence, the High Court under Section 29(2) of the “Rent Act” acts as a guardian against the fundamental, legal or jurisdictional error, and not as a fact finder".

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a tenant's widow (appellant-defendant) against the lower court's order which had ruled in favour of the landlord (respondent-plaintiff) who had sought to evict the tenant. Against this decision the tenant's widow had moved a plea under Section 29(2) Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act before the high court. 

Section 29(2) states, "No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under subsection (1) but the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law, call for the case in which such decision was taken and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit". 

The high court noted that the tenant - late Natvarlal Somdas Patel was carrying on business in the name and style of 'Bhagwati Kirana Store' in the suit premises. At the time of his death, which took place on 13.05.2003, none of his family members were carrying any business. The wife of late tenant (appellant) restarted the business of 'Bhagwati Kirana Store' after one year, as it came to be notice of the landlord.

Landlord, therefore, asked for the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises on the ground that, wife of the late tenant does not qualify as a 'tenant' in view of Section 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Bombay Rent Control Act.

The appellant argued that one Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel–son of the brother of late tenant–was doing business along with the tenant prior to his death, and has continued the business in the name and style of 'Bhagwati Kirana Store' after the demise of the tenant on 13.05.2003. After the death of tenant, the appellant has continued the business along with Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel in the name and style of 'Bhagwati Kirana Store'. Thus, the defendant or Anilbhai qualified as a tenant in operation of Section 5(11)(c)(ii).

"Though it is claimed that Mr. Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel was doing any business with the tenant – late Natvarlal Somdas Patel, no documentary evidence is produced on record to support such claim. The tenancy was person-centric. It is an undisputed aspect. The tenant - Natvarlal Somdas Patel started the business in the name and style of 'Bhagwati Kirana Store'. He died on 13.05.2003. Defendant claims that Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel was doing business along with the deceased tenant and continued the business along with the appellant after the death of the deceased tenant, but except bare words, nothing has been produced on record to prove the contention," the high court noted.

The court also noted that the case of Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel who had moved a plea before a coordinate high court bench appealing against the lower court's order was thoroughly negatived, as the coordinate bench did not believe that Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel qualifies as tenant within purview of Section 5(11)(c)(ii).

"Thus, it closes the case of the appellant. Appellant did not claim that she was doing business along with her husband prior to his death, but she came out with the contention that Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel was doing business with the husband and continued the business after the death of her husband and she joined the business along with Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel after the death of her husband. She has also admitted the said aspects in a cross-examination," the court said. 

It further noted that the appellant had admitted that her sons are doing another business, one is a Chemical Engineer and another is practicing Doctor and amongst the daughters, one is married and two are studying.

"In the aforesaid circumstances, according to this Court, the learned Courts below have not committed any error, which permits this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding. Anilbhai Parshottmdas Patel has his own shop in the name and style of 'Jay Ambe Kirana Store' near to the 'Bhagwati Kirana Store'. This is a clear and specific finding of the learned Court below and it got confirmed by the order passed by the coordinate Bench in Civil Application No. 5042 of 2024," the court said.

It thus dismissed the revision petition. 

Case title: SHANTABEN WD/O NATVERLAL SOMDAS PATEL v/s  VINUBHAI GANDABHAI PATEL

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 636 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order