Merely because another view is possible in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot upset the factual finding, the bench said.
Setting aside a high court judgment for having exceeded its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court, in Gandhe Vijay Kumar vs Mulji @ Mulchand, reiterated that the court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is only expected to see only whether the findings of the court below are illegal or perverse in the sense that a reasonably informed person will not enter such a finding.
Concurrent findings on facts with regard to the bonafide requirements of the landlord, by the rent controller as well as appellate authority, were set aside by the high court holding that “the court can re-appreciate the evidence to test whether the findings of the Rent Controller are correct”.
The landlord approached the apex court challenging this high court order.
Setting aside the order, the bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi observed: “We are afraid, the High Court has misdirected itself and exceeded its jurisdiction. In revisional jurisdiction, the Court is expected to see only whether the findings are illegal or perverse in the sense that a reasonably informed person will not enter such a finding.”
The bench also quoted the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Dilbahar Singh, for ‘proper guidance’ of the high court. The bench said the high court should not have ventured to look into the evidence as if in a first appeal and entered a different finding, though another finding might also be possible. Merely because another view is possible in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot upset the factual finding, it added.
Read the Judgment Here