Shri Buha Dass vs Shri Gopal Chand

Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.—In this revision petition, order dated 14-06-1980 passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, and order dated 08-10-1982 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") have been assailed under which the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered from the premises let out to him. There is concurrent finding of both the authorities under the Act that the petitioner could not prove if he had paid to the landlord, now respondent, the rent of the premises let out to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence on the file. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has limited scope in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajbir Kaur and Another Vs. S. Chokesiri and Co., 1845 wherein it has been observed as under:-

The scope of the revisional jurisdiction depends on the language of the statute conferring the revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is only a part of the appellate jurisdiction and cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. Though the revisional power - depending upon the language of the provision - might be wider than revisional power u/s 151 (or 115?) of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet a revisional Court is not a second or first appeal. When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record the revisional Court must indeed be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below. With respect to the High Court, we are afraid, the exercise made by it in its revisional jurisdiction incurs the criticism that the concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below could not be dealt and supplanted by a different finding arrived at on an independent reassessment of evidence as was done in this case. We think in the circumstances, we should agree with Sri Sanghi that the concurrent finding as to exclusive possession of M/s. Kwality Ice-Cream was not amendable to reversal in revision. Contentions (a) and (b) in our opinion are well taken and would require to be held in appellants'' favour."

I have perused the record of the case as well and find that the consistent findings of the authorities below are in accordance with the evidence on the record. The solitary plea of the petitioner was that he had been paying the rent to one Parshottam Lal Chopra, Property Dealer, through whom he had obtained the premises on rent. But said Parshottam Lal Chopra when appeared as petitioner-tenant''s witness could not show any authority on behalf of the landlord to collect rent from the petitioner. It is also on the record that the shop in question is a part of the residential premises of the landlord. If the petitioner had any intention to pay the rent to the landlord, there was no necessity of going to a third person staying at a distance of the shop to pay the rent by means of serving tea to Parshottam Lal Chopra towards payment of rent as per evidence adduced by the petitioner-tenant. Since the petitioner has miserably failed to prove any payment of rent to the landlord, there is no scope for interference in the order of ejectment passed against him. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.