KARTHIAYANI Vs. VENKITACHALA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A landlord in quest for an order of eviction of his tenant finds that the desired order is within the ken of his sight but yet outside the limit of his reach, drifting like a mirage. The order he seeks for is one under S. H (3) of Act 2 of 1965.

(2.) A litigation initiated by him in 1978 has already covered a chequered career by now and the present stage is when the District court has upheld his claim as bona fide, in reversal of a contrary finding by the two Courts earlier. In arriving at that finding the District Court has appointed a Commissioner and basing on the report of that Commissioner, it held that though the landlord is in possession of another building, the same is not suitable for his residential purposes and hence "the possession of that building by the landlord is not a ground to disallow the claim under S. 11 (3)of the Act". The said order of the District Court is challenged by the tenant in this revision petition filed under S. 115 of the Code of Civil procedure.

(3.) THE point raised in this revision under S. 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is that the District Court's order is vitiated by jurisdictional error in as much as it has allowed additional evidence to be collected at the revisional stage. THE argument is that the power of the revisional Court is only supervisory in nature to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity and propriety of the orders of the fact finding Courts and when those Courts have expressed that there is lack of evidence for a particular aspect, it is not the function of the Revisional Court to supply that evidence.