JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Kabul Singh has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 17.7.1985 and that the Appellate Authority dated 8.11.1988 respectively. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner which was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The sole ground of eviction taken by the respondent-landlord was that petitioner is a tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- excluding water, electricity charges and house tax. The rent was payable in advance on the first date of each month. The petitioner was pleaded to be in arrears of rent from 1.9.1981. The other ground of eviction that there has been change of user does not survive for consideration. In the written statement filed, the petitioner denied that arrears of rent were due. The petitioner’s case is that off and on the landlord had been issuing the receipts. The rent has been paid upto the end of July, 1982. A receipt was issued dated 10.7.1982.
3. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and concluded that arrears of rent were due. The same had not been tendered on the first date of hearing and an order of eviction was passed. An appeal was filed against the said order of the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority did not accept the rent receipt which was set up by the petitioner and relying on the report of the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert Shri K.N. Parshad from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh held that it was not a genuine document. The order of the learned Rent Controller was approved. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. On behalf of the respondent, it was urged that there are concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, this Court would not be justified in re-appraising the evidence.
5. In this regard reference can well be made to sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh it reads:-
“15(5) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceeding and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.”
It is abundantly clear from perusal of the same that High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction can only interfere taking note of the legality and propriety of the order.
6. This question as to when the High Court would interfere had more often than once been considered by this Court and the Supreme Court. Reference to some of those judgments can well be made. In the case of Mohinder Pal Singh v. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and Anr., 1985(2) Rent Law Reporter 557 this Court held that even when there are concurrent findings of fact, the High Court would be competent to find out the propriety of the order. If the inferences drawn by the authorities are not warranted and certain facts have been overlooked, the revisional Court should go into those facts and upset those findings. In the case of A. Khan Mohammed v. P. Narayanan Nambiar and Ors., 1987(2) Rent Law Reporter 386 a decision under the Tamil Nadu Building and (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 a similar view was expressed that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction will interfere if there are material omissions and inadmissible evidence has been considered. In paragraph 4 it was held:-
“A revisional authority can interfere with a finding of fact also if there is no other material on which such a finding could be based or, the finding has been reached by a consideration of irrelevant or inadmissible matter, or it is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion or the finding has been reached by an erroneous under standing of the law applicable to the particular matter.”
Similarly in the case of Arshad Ali v. Kailash, 1998 (1) Rent Control Reporter 618, this Court after looking at certain earlier decisions had held that if there is misreading of evidence and findings are erroneous, the High Court can look into the evidence and set up those findings. In paragraph 10 it was held :-
“From the above said conclusion, it is obvious that in normal circumstances in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court will not reappraise the evidence. However, if there is misreading of evidence or findings are absurd or erroneous, the High Court can certainly took into the material on record and come to a different conclusion. It is true that revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction but as noticed above, if the findings so arrived at are contrary of law, the correctness of the same can certainly be looked into. With this backdrop, one has necessarily to see if the findings of the authorities, namely the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority, are preserve or there is any absurdity in arriving at correct conclusion therein or not. Exhibit P-5 is the rent note that has been produced on the record and there is no controversy raised at either end that it was shown that it was the petitioner Arshad Ali who had taken the shop in dispute on rent.”
7. The Supreme Court has also expressed the same view and in the case of Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan v. Vinod Kumar Mital, 1986(2) Rent Control Reporter 30 referred to the powers of the High Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act and held:-
“It cannot be disputed that the powers of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act are wide and not confined merely to examining the legality of the appellate authority’s order nor are those powers akin to the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act in so far as he material states:” The High Court may………..on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion call for and examine the records relating to any order……….for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order………..and may pass such order in relating thereto as it may deem fit.” We find that at two places in its judgment the High Court has categorically observed that it was not open to it to reappraise the evidence unless the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority suffered from some legal infirmity and further that even if it were to come to a different conclusion-of course properly and reasonably – it would not be open to it to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority on reappraised of the evidence. It is true as was fairly pointed out by counsel for the appellant that High Court has even after making these observations itself gone into the evidence and appreciated it in a particular manner but on reading the entire judgment as a whole we feel that the approach to the main issue arising in the case and the evidence led by the parties thereon has been considerably influenced or coloured by the unwarranted inhibition which the High Court put upon the exercise of its revisional powers as aforesaid and therefore, it becomes necessary to consider the order submissions made by counsel for the appellant before us.” In the well known decision in the of Damadilal and Ors. v. Parashram and Ors., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2229 rendered under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the Supreme Court once again concluded that if there is important evidence that has been ignored, the High Court can interfere in those findings in second appeal. It was held:-
“It is well established that if a finding of fact is arrived at ignoring important and relevant evidence, the finding is bad in law. (See Radha Nath Seal v. Haripada Sana, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1049). We, therefore, think that the High Court was within its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding of the lower appellate court and restoring that of the trial Court on this point.”
Same was the view expressed in the case of Smt. Mehrunnisa and Ors. v. Smt. Visham Kumari and Anr., J.T. 1997(9) S.C. 616. It is abundantly clear from aforesaid that if findings are erroneous or absurd and irrelevant evidence has been considered, the High Court can certainly interfere and upset those findings.
8. On the first date of hearing on behalf of the petitioner, statement was made that petitioners are not in arrears of rent. They had paid the same upto 31.7.1982 against the receipt. It is not being disputed that if the arrears as such claimed are held to be due, the petitioners are liable to be evicted and not otherwise. With this backdrop one can conveniently travel to the evidence on the record to find out if the findings are based on appreciation of evidence or are erroneous.
9. The respondent-landlord appears as AW-1. He insisted that rent claimed is due. The receipt purporting to be regarding the rent for July, 1.982 was shown to him and he stated:-
“The writing on mark ‘A’ may be in my handwriting. Again said that it is not in my handwriting. None of the wording on mark A is in my handwriting. It is incorrect to suggest that mark A is in my handwriting that I am deposing falsely. It is incorrect that mark A was issued by me after receipt of rent for the month of July, 1982.”
As against this the petitioner examined Shri K.N. Parshad, a Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh who made a statement that the disputed signatures on the said receipt are of the respondent-landlord but further added that there is erosion in digit 2 in the year 1982. The petitioner as RW2 as expected stated that rent for July, 1982 had been paid vide receipt Ex.R-4.-He produced other receipts including Ex.R-6 as rent for April, May and June.
10. As already pointed out above strong reliance was placed by both the authorities on the opinion of the Expert regarding digit 2 in the year. 1982. The said opinion reads:-
“5) There are some significant facts which need to be brought to the notice of the Court relating to disputed voucher bearing Q-l and they are as under:-
a) The present date “10.7.82” now marked Q-l/A and the year “1982” marked Q-l/B have been written over paper surface bearing signs of erasure.
b) The body writings of the disputed voucher (bearing Q-l), which has been now encircled with red pencil, has been written in more than one handwriting and also with more than one writing instrument. This is unlike the remaining two vouchers (bearing the sample signatures A-2 to A-5).”
However a fact which cannot be ignored is that the learned Court had sent the disputed and admitted signatures for comparison. The opinion of the Expert was not called pertaining to the said digit. The order making the reference by the learned Rent Controller reads:-
“Find enclosed herewith three receipts one dated 10.7.82 and the remaining two dated 14.7.81. There are admitted signatures of Shri Gurinder Singh plaintiff on the revenue stamp on both the receipts dated 14.7.81. However, he has denied his signatures on receipt dated 10.7.82. The signatures on the disputed receipt is underneath the word signatures on the receipt. You are accordingly requested to compare the admitted signatures of Gurinder Singh on receipts dated 14.7.84 with the disputed signatures on receipt dated 10.7.82. Draft for an amount of Rs. 250/- is also enclosed herewith. The next date fixed in the suit is 30.8.84. Please expedite the matter at the earliest.
That being the position, the Expert should have confined himself to the relevant facts. He had no business to travel beyond the reference. If any other opinion was expressed it had to be ignored.
11. On behalf of the respondent, it was pointed that the Expert was the witness of the petitioner and he never cross-examined the witness. Indeed it was unnecessary. When an irrelevant and inadmissible statement was made and it can be ignored, it was improper to cross-examine such a person. It would be a comedy of errors. Therefore, the findings in this regard by the authorities namely the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are erroneous because irrelevant evidence has been considered.
12. The Expert had found that the disputed signatures were of the respondent. Even when the respondent was in the witness box, he admitted his signatures half heatedly but immediately took up the courage to deny the same. This shows that it was nothing but evasive statement made regarding the execution of the receipt.
13. Not only that the receipt Ex.R-4 is of July 10,. 1982. According to the respondent the digit 1 has been changed into 2. But it could not be so because vide; Ex.R-6 rent for April, May and June, 1981 has been paid. The said receipt is of the subsequent date, It cannot be that rent would be paid for July, 1981 earlier to April, May arid June, 1981.
14. To crown it all it is in evidence that the respondent-landlord has been maintaining the accounts. In the trial Court/Rent Controller an application was filed that respondent should be called upon to produce the accounts. The accounts were not produced and instead the respondent contended that necessary Inferences can be drawn for withholding the information. The inferences are obvious that had the same been produced, it would not have supported the case of the respondent.
15. These facts clearly show that findings arrived at by the authorities below are erroneous while considering the irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. Therefore, under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, they require interference of this Court.
16. As an off shoot of these reasons, it must be held that arrears of rent were not due. The revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Instead the eviction application is dismissed.