S. 115 CPC | Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Correct Factual Errors, Even If Facts Are Allegedly Concealed : Supreme Court

Observing that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of fact or law unless they relate to a jurisdictional error, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21) set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had overturned concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of its revisional powers by reappreciating facts and interfering solely on the ground that certain facts had allegedly been concealed.

“The primary reason why the High Court overturned the decision of the Courts below was that the landlady (Kamla Devi) had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed the availability of the third shop. It was observed that the said shop was used to store garbage. If the shop that is alleged to be an alternate accommodation was being used for storing waste material as has been held by both the RA and the AA, then that being the finding of fact, what occasioned the High Court to take a different view in civil revisional jurisdiction?”, the Court said.

In essence, the Court said that factual errors regarding the concealment of a third shop by the Appellant cannot be rectified or corrected in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, just to take a view different from what was taken by the tribunals.

The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both found the landlord's case proved and decreed eviction, holding that the tenant had not validly tendered arrears and that the landlord genuinely required the shop for her son's business.

However, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reversed these concurrent findings on the ground that the landlady had concealed the existence of a third shop which was lying vacant, and thus had not approached the court with clean hands.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the landlord approached the Supreme Court.

The judgment authored by Justice Karol set aside the High Court's order, holding that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and disturbing concurrent findings of fact, which were neither perverse nor suffering from any jurisdictional error.

The Court reaffirmed that revisional power under Section 115 CPC cannot be equated with appellate power, and the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings merely because a different view is possible, especially when the courts below had already held that the third shop was being used for storing garbage and did not constitute suitable alternative accommodation for the landlord's bona fide requirement.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: MADAN MOHAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VERSUS THAKAR DASS (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag, AOR Mr. Abhijeet Shah, Adv. Ms. Pragya Palawat, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv., Amicus Curiae