SAWARAN SINGH Vs. KANWAR RAGHBIR BAJADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the landlord-respondents have constructed the new building in the year 1992 and, therefore, the provision of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act'), were not applicable. It has been provided under Section 1(3), of the Act that a new building shall remain exempted from operation of the Act for a period of 10 years. Both the Courts below have held that prior to the construction it was a residential building and was in the shape of a 'Khola' as is known in common parlance. In other words, the residential building although had some tenants, was in dilapidated condition. The findings of the trial Court on the aforementioned issue are available in para Nos. 10 and 11 under Issue Nos. 1 and 2, which read as under:-

(2.) The finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court by noticing two facts. It has been noticed that the entries of record maintained by the Municipal Committee categorically show that the assessment for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94 has undergone tremendous change. It was earlier a dilapidated residence/building which has later been turn into a commercial complex. A copy of the Assessment Register has been placed on record as Ex. P-22, wherein the whole of the 'Shiva Market' has been assessed for the purpose of house tax. The annual house tax assessed of the building is Rs. 4,54,920/-.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that these are findings of fact. It has been concurrently found by the Courts below that a new building had come into existence in the year 1992. The defendant-appellants had occupied a shop in the building on 15.2.1994. The findings are based on cogent evidence. It cannot be concluded that there is no evidence to support the findings or the finding are so perverse that a reasonable person would not reach to the aforementioned conclusion. The scope of interference as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code is that this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to record a finding different than the one recorded by the Courts below merely because another view is possible. It is well settled that one Judge after re-appreciation of the evidence could record finding 'A' whereas the other may record another finding. However, it would not entitle this Court to record a different finding.