V SAROJINI Vs. VENKA RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owners of house No. 1285, Kothagraharam, Vizianagaram are aggrieved for their application (A. B. No. 76 of 1970) for eviction against the tenant for their (own requirement,) was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 31-3-1971. The Subordinate Judge at Vizianagaram dismissed the appeal (C. M. A. No. 22 of 1971) on 29-6-1976 holding the four daughters of the Revision Petitioners (studying with Oriya Medium at Jeypore) cannot join any school at Vizianagaram and Exs. A. I and A. 2 the two letters by the tenant expressing "a sort of willingness" cannot be read as "undertaking" by the tenant and "in the present case the petitioners (landlords) are living in a different State and their requirement of the scheduled premises is not bona fide as the petitioners' children are studying in a different State and the second petitioner (landlord) has no independent source of living apart from his monthly pension Rs. 100/-".

(2.) The revision petition is lodged under section 22 of Act XV of 1960 for the High Court to "examine the records for satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding and pass such orders as it thinks fit." What are the powers of the High Court ? The debate centred round the meaning of the word "propriety" and its implication. It is argued on behalf of the tenant that the appellate authority determined the tacts holding the premises is not "required" by the owners and such a finding it is argutd is conclusive determination of the issue and this Court cannot review the evidence exercising the re visionary jurisdiction under Section 22 of this Act. Divergent views have been expressed in the cases decided b this Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued it is "safe" to decide the questions of fact by this Court as has been done is some cases. The learned counsel for the tenant in opposition to that course relied on the case B. Nagaswamy Rao Vs. G. Ramachandra Rao) wherein it was held it is not open for this Court to go into the question ut bona fildes atresh in a revision under section 22 of the Act. The following passage in that judgment speaks for that view.

(3.) In Kanchana Kesava Rao vs. Kasuri Subbaraju And Another , Viswanatha Sastry, J. speaking for tne Divisional Bench observed : "Legality" and "regularity"are well understood terms and well recognised grounds of Judicial interference on an appeal or revision. Au order is illegal if it is opposed to any enactment or any ruie having the force of law. It is irregular if the procedure followed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The term "propriety" is, however ot wide import and there migat be honest differenecs of order even though it is in confirmity with the law and within the powers of the authority making the order". In the above case the implication of the word ''propriety" was not made clear. In the same volume at page 1079 Vemuri Ethirajamma vs. Nune Raghavulu Setti And 3 Others Satyanarayana Raju, J. considered the similar language containing the expression "propriety" occurring in section 12-B of the Act XXV of 1949 as "wide enough" to cover both questions of law and fact and said those powers "go far beyond the revisional jurisdiction strictly so called".