SAKINABEN JUSABHAI & OTHERS Vs. PRAJAPATI LALJI PUNJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx

(2.) Before proceeding with the contentions raised in the present revision, it must be kept in mind that the present revision is one under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. In the context of the powers of , the' High Court exercisable in such revisions, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai (AIR 1987 SC 1782) is most relevant In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed in substance that in exercising revisional power under Section 29(2) the High Court must ensure that the principles of law have been correctly borne in mind by the lower court Secondly, the facts have been properly appreciated and a decision arrived at taking all material and relevant facts in mind. In order to warrant interference, the decision must be such a decision which no reasonable man could have arrived at. Lastly, such a decision does not lead to a miscarriage of justice. But, in the guise of revision, substitution of one view where two views are possible and the Court of Small Causes has taken a particular view, is not permissible. If a possible view has been taken, the High Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction if it substitutes its own view in place of that of the courts below because it considers it to be a better view. The fact that the High Court would have taken a different view is wholly irrelevant.

(3.) xxx xxx xxxx