While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Under Urban Rent Control Act, High Court Will Not Sit As Court Of Appeal: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Revision Petition before the High Court was filed under Section 25 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority in a Rent Appeal whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed.

Expounding on the law relating to revision petitions, the Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya affirmed, “It is more than settled that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act, will not sit as a Court of appeal. The findings of fact recorded concurrently by the original and appellate Court cannot be normally interfered with except in case where perversity or absolute illegality is found to have been committed. Similarly, reappraisal of evidence in revisional jurisdiction is not permissible. The revisional Court also cannot substitute its view for the view taken by the original and appellate Court if the same is found to be a possible one.”

Advocate S. D. Sharma represented the Appellant while Advocate Pradeep K. Verma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent landlord had filed a petition under Section 14, impleading the respondent tenants and another respondent sub-tenant, with the allegation that the tenants had sublet the premises to the sub-tenant. It was alleged that the landlord had inducted one Shrawan Chaudhary as a tenant in a shop, and after the death of the original tenant, the tenancy rights were inherited by the tenants, who had further sublet the premises to the sub-tenant. The eviction was also sought on the ground of arrears of rent.

The Rent Controller ordered the eviction and further held that the sub-tenant was in user and control of the demised premises, which was parted with by the tenants in his favour for consideration. The tenants and sub-tenant jointly filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed. It was in such circumstances that the Revision Petition came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the landlord had filed the eviction petition by impleading the tenant and sub-tenant as party respondents. Sub-tenant filed the statutory appeal under Section 24 of the Act, and at that stage the landlord did not take an objection. “A sub-tenant is not a necessary party to a petition for eviction on the ground of subletting. The eviction order against the tenant binds even the subtenant, but since in the instant case the landlord herself had impleaded sub-tenant as a party, keeping in view the exposition of law in Karam Singh Sobti (supra), it cannot be said that the sub-tenant is not the aggrieved party. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the landlord cannot be sustained”, it stated.

The respondents had contested the claim of the landlord by denying the claim of sub-tenancy and submitting that the tenants had to enter into the partnership due to ill-health of the first respondent. On this aspect, the Bench noted that in order to substantiate their defence neither the tenants nor the sub-tenant had placed on record any transaction which could validate the terms of the partnership deed. No account books were produced to show that the sharing of profit and loss was put into effect between the parties.

“Evidently, the partnership deed was executed for dual purpose, firstly to camouflage the relationship and secondly to secure the interest of the tenants to get monthly income”, the Bench said while finding no illegality with the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The Bench, thus, dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Usha Chaudhary v. Raj Prakash (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:33885)

Click here to read/download Order