V P PAIANIVEL MUDALIAR Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P. No. 440 of 1983 on the file of Rent Controller/I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchi, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) PARTIES herein will be referred to according to their rank before the Rent Controller.

(3.) BEFORE going to the merits of the case, I have to consider the scope of revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. In the recent decision in T. Siva-subramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari ((1999) 7 S.C.C. 275), is a case coming under Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act itself, their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the judgment held thus: "5. So far as the second submission is concerned, the language employed in Section 25 of the Act, which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, is very wide. Under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court can call for and examine the record of the Appellate authority in order to satisfy itself as to regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders passed therein. The words "to satisfy itself employed in Section 25 of the Act no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the Courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is not an Appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the Courts below is based on n o evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding recorded by the Courts below." (Emphasis supplied).