VITAL DAS RAO Vs. MUTHUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Kozhikode in exercise of the revisional powers under S.12B of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The main ground urged in the petition for revision is that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the District Court under S.12B of the Act does not carry with it the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Sub-Judge in appeal.

(2.) S.12B of the Act expressly empowers the District Court to examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act ............ for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order it) reference thereto as it thinks fit. A comparison of this provision with that in S.115 C. P. C. makes it clear that the power conferred is far wider than that conferred by the Civil Procedure Code and is comprehensive enough to cover a revision of decisions on questions of fact. A jurisdiction to examine the propriety of an order necessarily involves the power to canvass the correctness of the order on the merits of the facts and circumstances on which it is based. See the observations of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan [ AIR 1960 SC 655 , Para 10]. The objection that the District Court exercising a revisional power under S.12B of the Act has no authority to interfere with findings of fact entered by a Subordinate Judge in appeal has no substance and has therefore to be rejected.

(3.) The C. R. P. fails and it is dismissed with costs.