ANTHAPPAI Vs. AHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. special leave granted.

(2.) THIS appeal filed by the landlord arises out of a petition filed under ss. 11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the respondent from the building situate in the city of Cochin .

(3.) AT this stage, it may also be mentioned that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under s. 20 of the Act, the High Court can "call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit". It is no doubt true that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under s. 20 is wider than that conferred under s. 115 CPC. But at the same time, a revision under s. 20 cannot be equated with an appeal. Moreover, the revisional power conferred under s. 20 also embraces an order passed by the appellate Authority. While considering the provisions conferring revisional power couched in a language similar to that contained in s. 20 of the Act, this court has laid down that the power conferred on the High Court is essentially a power of superintendence and despite the wide language employed, the High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact of the subordinate authority merely because it does not agree with the said findings. (see: Dattonpant gopalvarao v. Vithabrao Maruthirao Jana'gaval, 1975 supp. SCR 67; M/s. sri. Raia lakshmi Dyeing Works & Ors v. Ran-gaswamy Chettiar, AIR 1980 SC 1253 ). The revisional court must 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 of and supported the one reached by the court below. (see: Rajbir v. s. Chokesiri & Co. , 1989 (1) SCC 19, at p. 37 ).