Civil Revision in High Court Rent Petition

In this post, we will discuss the revisional jurisdiction of High Court

under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code which gives a viable power
of Revision to the High Court to exercise a superintending and visitorial
power over subordinate courts. Revision implies reexamination of case
which includes illegal assumption, non exercise or irregular exercise of
jurisdiction. In order to maintain a strategic distance from the likelihood
of any miscarriage of justice in cases where no right of appeal is
accessible under any law or code has conceived another review
procedure, specifically Revision.

This view is based on latest judgment of Punjab Haryana Highh Court on

Civil revision in rent petition from Arun Kumar vs Pushpa Devi on
21 January, 2021

Brief facts of the case :

1. The Civil Revision No.3654 of 2008, 8480 of 2010, 3598 of 2012,
1238, 1241, 1252 and 1255 of 2019 shall stand disposed of. Counsel for
the parties are ad-idem that these revision petitions can conveniently be
disposed of by a common order. Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010 has
been filed by the landlord, whereas remaining petitions have been filed by
the tenants.

2. The property in question is owned by a registered trust, namely, Shri

Krishan Bhagwan Bhakti Ashram Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Trust').

3. It has further been contended that no doubt, the tenants took the
premises on rent from late Smt. Maya Devi, who was
Mohatmim/Manager of the Bhawan.

4. In all the revision petitions filed by the tenants, both the courts below
have ordered their eviction on the ground that the building has become
dilapidated and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

5. In Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010, the alleged landlords have prayed

for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control
of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1 of 8
1973 Act').
6. In the aforesaid petition, the learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent,
whereas the learned Appellate Authority after fixing the fair rent,
accepted that appeal while observing that the petition filed before the
Rent Controller was not maintainable as there was no landlord-tenant
relationship.
LEGAL ISSUES:
1.Whether their is landlord and tenant relation
between Arun kumar s/o Surrender Kumar and
tenants (Pushpa Devi).

2.Whether the tenanted building has become unfit and

unsafe for human habitation.
Argument advanced for legal issue 1:
1. The property in question is owned by a registered trust,
namely, Shri Krishan Bhagwan Bhakti Ashram Trust.

2. It has further been contended that no doubt, the tenants took

the premises on rent from late Smt. Maya Devi, who was
Mohatmim/Manager of the Bhawan. After the death of Shrimati
Maya Devi his Son took the rent from the tenants.

3. It may be noted here that urban tenancies in the State of Haryana are
governed by the 1973 Act. Section 2(c) defines the word 'landlord' which
reads as under:- "landlord" means any person for the time being entitled
to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his
own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or as a
trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person,
and includes a tenant who sublets any building or rented land in the
manner hereinafter provided, and every person from time to time deriving
title under a landlord."

4. It is apparent from a bare reading of the definition of the word landlord

that the words 'landlord' and 'owner' are not synonymous for the 3 of 8
purpose of the 1973 Act. The word 'landlord' as defined in the Act takes
within its purview such other person, who either himself is entitled to
receive rent or entitled to receive the same on behalf of someone else.

5.The landlord also includes trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or

administrator for any other person. It also includes a tenant who has sub-
let any building or rented land. Every person who derives title under the
term 'landlord', from time to time, is also included in the definition of
landlord. Thus, it can be safely stated that the word 'landlord' is not
restricted to the ownership but includes within its sweep a broad spectrum
of persons.

6. In these cases, both the courts have correctly held that Smt. Maya
Devi, had leased out the properties to the tenants and they have been
admittedly paying rent to her during her life time, hence, she was the
landlord.

7.After her death, the tenants have been paying rent to Surender Kumar, a
legatee under the registered will. After the death of Surender Kumar, the
rent is being collected by his son Amit Kumar.
 7. The Trust has also recognised Surender Kumar as the
Manager/Mohatmim of the Bhawan.

Argument advanced for legal issue 2:

1. It may be noted here that in Civil Revision No.3654 of 2008,

it was found that second floor of the premises has fallen down.
In the aforesaid case, the eviction was sought from residential
premises.

2. In fact, the entire building is a big Dharamshala (building

constructed for temporary stay of pilgrims). With the passage of
time, certain shops were constructed and certain portion was
given for residence.

3. It has been found by the courts below that the building is

more than a century old. Still further, the building expert has
reported that the building has become unfit and unsafe.

4. In 2014, Mr. Balwant Singh Malik, Sub Divisional Engineer,

6 of 8 Provincial Sub Division No.2, PWD(B&R) Branch, was
appointed by the court as Loal Commissioner to ascertain the
condition of the building.

5. The local commissioner, after inspecting the building, found

that the building is very old and is constructed with mud mortor.
The bricks used in roof of the projection have decayed and steel
used therein has caught rust. Cracks were found below the
junction of the wall and the roof.

6. It was further reported that further use of the building

without re-construction is dangerous. Still further, various
photographs of the building have been produced. Both the courts
on appreciation of evidence, concurrently, found that the
building has become unfit and unsafe.
Findings of the Court:
1. The Civil Revision No.3654 of 2008, 8480 of 2010, 3598 of 2012,
1238, 1241, 1252 and 1255 of 2019 shall stand disposed of.The court
observed that their is tenant and landlord relation between petitioner and
defendants (tenants).of late Smt. Maya Devi, who herself was a manager,
to bequeath the office by a registered Will, it may be noted that in these
proceedings neither the validity of the Will for the purpose of competence
to bequeath the property is being finally decided nor such question can be
decided in an eviction petition. For the purpose of maintainability, there
is ample evidence to hold that after the death of late Smt. Maya Devi,
Surender Kumar stepped into her shoes as the manager of the Bhawan
and thereafter, Amit Kumar son of Surender Kumar manages its affairs.

2. . Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010 has been filed by the landlord is

allowed the alleged landlords have prayed for the fixation of fair rent
under Section 4 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1 of 8 1973 Act') the aforesaid
facts, the Civil Revision No.8480 of 2010 is allowed and the fair rent of
Rs.100/- per month, fixed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate
Authority, is maintained. However, the finding of the Appellate Authority
to the extent of non-maintainability of the petition filed by the Bhawan
and Surender Kumar is set aside as the Appellate Authority overlooked
the definition of 'landlord' as defined in the 1973 Act.

3. It may be noted here that this court while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction has very limited scope. The High Court has no power to re-
appreciate the evidence. Reference in this regard can be made to a 5
Judges judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar
Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78.
Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing v. Swaraj Developers
 A plain reading of Section 115 as it stands makes it clear that the stress is
on the question whether the order in favor of the party applying for
revision would have given finality to suit or other proceeding.  If the
answer is ‘yes’ then the revision is maintainable. But on the contrary, if
the answer is ‘no’ then the revision is not maintainable.  The legislative
intent is crystal clear. Those orders, which are interim in nature, cannot
be the subject matter of revision under Section 115. Preferring an
application under Section 115 of the Code is not a substantive right.  It is
a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate courts.

Conclusion:
The Revisional Jurisdiction clothes the High Court with the
powers to see that the proceedings of the subordinate courts are
conducted in accordance with law within the bounds of their
jurisdiction and in furtherance of justice. It enables the High
Court to correct, when necessary, errors of jurisdiction
committed by subordinate courts and provides the means to an
aggrieved party to obtain rectification of a non-appealable order.
In other words, for the effective exercise of its superintending
and visitorial powers, revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon
the High Court. Revisional Jurisdiction is not intended to allow
the High Court to interfere and correct errors of fact or of law.
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court must not be misused by
parties to delay their proceedings.