{"id":98541,"date":"2001-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001"},"modified":"2017-05-03T21:08:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-03T15:38:13","slug":"lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","title":{"rendered":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: Misra.<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Misra, D.P. Mohapatra.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 1057-1058  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nLEKH RAJ\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNI LAL & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/02\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nA.P. Misra & D.P. Mohapatra.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
MISRA. J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t present  appeals  are by  the\tdefendant-tenant  as
\nagainst\t the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the High
\nCourt  in  its revisional jurisdiction by which it  reversed
\nthe finding of the appellate court that the disputed shop in
\nquestion  is not unsafe for human habitation.  The questions
\nraised in these appeals are:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t  Whether  the\tHigh   Court  under  its  Revisional
\nJurisdiction  which  limits  to examine\t the  legality\tand
\npropriety  of  the appellate court order was  justified\t in
\nreversing its findings based on evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Whether the High Court could have appointed a local
\nCommissioner  while  exercising its revisional\tjurisdiction
\nand  to reverse the finding of the appellate court based  on
\nthe report of such Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    In order to appreciate the controversies we are herewith
\ngiving\tsome of the essential facts.  The appellant took the
\ndisputed  shop\ton rent from one Aya Ram who sold  the\tsaid
\nshop  to one Prakash Rani.  The respondents nos.  1 to 8 are
\nLrs.   of this Prakash Rani, who filed petition for eviction
\nagainst\t the  appellant under Section 13 of the East  Punjab
\nUrban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as
\nthe  ‘Act)  from the disputed shop.  The eviction  petition
\nwas  based on three grounds:  (a) The appellant has not paid
\nthe  rent  from 2nd July, 1968, (b) He has sub-let the\tshop
\nwithout\t taking\t the permission of the landlord and (c)\t the
\nbuilding  is in dilapidated condition with cracks hence\t not
\nfit   for   human  habitation\trequiring   demolition\t and
\nreconstruction.\t  The  appellant denied all these and  other
\nallegations  made in the petition.  The trial court  decreed
\nthe  eviction petition.\t It held that the appellant tendered
\nthe  rent on 24.10.1975 about which no grievance was made by
\nthe  respondent-landlord at the time of arguments, the\tshop
\nwas sub-let by the appellant, and the disputed shop is unfit
\nfor  human  habitation.\t The appellant filed appeal and\t the
\nAppellate Court set aside the trial court findings.  It held
\nthat  sub- letting has not been proved.\t It further, on\t the
\nbasis  of  evidence on record, held that it cannot  be\tsaid
\nthat the cracks in the building have made it unfit or unsafe
\nfor  human  habitation.\t  Aggrieved by this  the  respondent
\nfiled  revision\t in the High Court.  During the pendency  of
\nthe  said  revision an application was moved by\t respondents
\nfor  appointment of a local Commissioner which was  objected<\/p>\n
through\t written objection by the appellant.  The said local
\nCommissioner submitted his report to the court, the relevant
\nportion of his report is quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
    there was a hole in the roof measuring 13 x 12 which
\nhad  been  temporarily shut from the interior side with\t the
\nhelp  of  wooden planks by giving the support of sticks\t and
\nfrom  the upper side this hole was found and 4 Ballies\tnear
\nthe  hole were in a decayed condition and wooden planks near
\nthe  hole  were in a bad condition due to seepage  of  water
\nfrom  the hole of the roof..The outerside of the right side
\nwall  of the shop, there was a big crack on the beginning of
\nthe wall extending from top to more than middle of the wall.
\nThis  crack  measuring 2x 7.5 (depth) from the upper  side
\nand  1.5  x 6.5 from the lower side and in the end of  the
\nsame  wall, there was also a big crack measuring 2x 8 from
\nthe  upperside 2×7 from the lower side and the roof of the
\npassage\t was  in a totally damaged condition which  did\t not
\ncover the shop but covers the passage.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant  filed objection to this report  pointing
\ncertain\t anomalies  with a prayer to ignore this report\t and
\nappoint\t  another  local  Commissioner.\t   The\tHigh   Court
\nconfirmed as against respondent-landlord, the finding of the
\nAppellate Court on the question of sub-letting.\t However, it
\nreversed  its  finding based on the said local\tCommissioner
\nreport\tby holding that the disputed shop is unfit for human
\nhabitation.  The appellant being aggrieved by this order has
\nfiled the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The submission is, power of revision cannot be construed
\nto  empower court to reappraise the evidence and disturb the
\nfindings  of  fact recorded by the Appellate Court.   Having
\nlimited\t revisional  jurisdiction  the High  Court  was\t not
\njustified  in  interfering with the finding recorded by\t the
\nAppellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tappreciate  this submission the revisional power  of
\nthe  High  Court  under sub-section 5 of Section 15  of\t the
\naforesaid Act is quoted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
    15(5):   The  High\tCourt  may, at\tany  time,  on\tthe
\napplication  of\t any aggrieved party or on its\town  motion,
\ncall and examine the records relating to any order passed or
\nproceedings  taken  under  this\t Act   for  the\t purpose  of
\nsatisfying  itself  as to the legality or propriety of\tsuch
\norder\/proceedings  and may pass an order in relation thereto
\nas it may deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
    The law on the subject is well settled.  The language of
\nthis   sub-   section  clearly\t spells\t out,\tHigh   Court
\njurisdiction  is neither restricted to what is under Section
\n115  of the Civil Procedure Code nor it is as large as power
\nof  the\t Appellate  Authority.\t The High  Court  under\t its
\nsupervisory   revisional  jurisdiction\t could\texamine\t the
\nlegality  or propriety of any order.  This legality or
\npropriety  widens  the\tscope of the High Court\t which\tis
\nlarger\tthan  the  power of revision under  Civil  Procedure
\nCode.  But in no case it confers power to set aside findings
\nof fact by reappraisal of evidence.  In doing so it would be
\ntrespassing  its  jurisdiction.\t  However, good\t reason\t for
\ndrawing\t a different conclusion it cannot be construed to be
\nwithin\tjurisdiction.  Thus courts have to carve out a field
\nfor   the   exercise  of   revisional\tjurisdiction   under
\nsub-section  (5)  of  Section 15, emanating from  the  words
\nlegality  and propriety which should be between\t limited
\nrevisional  jurisdictional  under Section 115 CPC and  wider
\nappellate jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    Strong  reliance  has been placed for the  appellant  in
\nLachmand  Dass vs.  Santokh Singh,<\/a> (1995) 4v SCC 202.\tThis
\nCourt  was  considering, the revisional jurisdiction of\t the
\nHigh  Court  under sub- section (6) of Section 15 under\t the
\nHaryana\t Rent  Control\tAct which is para materia  with\t the
\nrevisional  power under the aforesaid Act under which we are
\nconsidering.  This Court held:\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  present case sub-section (6) of Section 15\t of
\nthe  Act confers revisional power on the High Court for\t the
\npurpose\t of satisfying itself with regard to the legality or
\npropriety  of an order or proceeding taken under the Act and
\nempowers  the  High  Court to pass such\t order\tin  relation
\nthereto\t as  it\t may  deem  fit.  The  High  Court  will  be
\njustified  in  interfering with the order in revision if  it
\nfinds that the order of the appellate authority suffers from
\na  material impropriety or illegality.\tFrom the use of\t the
\nexpression   Legality  or  propriety  of  such\t order\t or
\nproceedings  occurring in sub-section (6) of Section 15\t of
\nthe  Act,  it appears that no doubt the revisional power  of
\nthe  High Court under the Act is wider than the power  under
\nSection 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is confined
\nto  jurisdiction,  but\tis also not so wide  as\t to  embrace
\nwithin its fold all the attributes and characteristics of an
\nappeal\tand  disturb a concurrent finding of  fact  properly
\narrived at without recording a finding that such conclusions
\nare  perverse  or  based  on  no  evidence  or\tbased  on  a
\nsuperficial and perfunctory approach.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the appellant, reliance is also placed on Shiv\t Lal
\nvs.   Sat Parkash and Anr.,<\/a> 1993 Supp.\t(2) SCC 345.  It was
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
    While  exercising  jurisdiction under Section 15(5)\t of
\nthe  Act the Court does not act as a regular third appellate
\ncourt  and  can\t interfere  only within\t the  scope  of\t the
\nsub-section.   In the present case, the High Court, on being
\nmisled\tby  its\t view  that  the cession  of  tenancy  is  a
\nnecessary  element  of\tSection 13(2)(iv),  the\t High  Court
\nproceeded  to  re- examine the evidence on the records,\t and
\nreversed the finding of facts concurrently arrived at by the
\ntrial  Court and the first appellate court.  An\t examination
\nof  the facts and circumstances of this case indicates\tthat
\nthe  reconsideration  of the evidence by the High Court\t was
\nnot justified.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tthe other hand learned counsel for the appellant has
\nrelied\ton  Mrs.  Mohini Suraj Bhan vs.\t Vinod Kumar  Mital,<\/a>
\n(1986) 1 SCC 687.  This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
    It cannot be disputed that the powers of the High Court
\nunder  Section\t15(5) of the Act are wide and  not  confined
\nmerely\t to   examining\t the   legality\t of  the   appellate
\nauthoritys  order  nor\tare  those   powers  akin  to\tthe
\nrevisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the
\nCPC.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t pith  and substance of these authorities, to  which
\nappellant   relies  is\tthat   Court  under  its  revisional
\njurisdiction  cannot  disturb finding of facts nor could  it
\nreappraise  evidence  on  record, it can only  interfere  if
\nthere  is impropriety and illegality in the impugned  order.
\nOne  of\t the submissions for the appellant is that the\tHigh
\nCourt  in  its\trevisional   jurisdiction  should  not\thave
\npermitted  the inspection of the disputed shop by the  local
\nCommissioner  while exercising its revisional  jurisdiction.
\nThe submission is, the revisional court could only take into
\nconsideration the fact existing on the date of filing of the
\neviction  petition supported by evidence on record, thus  by
\nbringing  on  record  the  aforesaid  report  of  the  local
\nCommissioner which was called after 18 years of the pendency
\nof  the\t revision  in the High Court cannot be\tsaid  to  be
\nwithin the jurisdiction of the Revisional courts.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t law  on  the  subject is  also\t settled.   In\tcase
\nsubsequent  event  or fact having bearing on the  issues  or
\nrelief\tin a suit or proceeding, to which any party seek  to
\nbring  on  record, the Court should not shut its door.\t All
\nlaws  and procedures including functioning of courts are all
\nin aid to confer justice to all who knocks its door.  Courts
\nshould interpret the law not in derogation of justice but in
\nits aid.  Thus bringing on record subsequent event, which is
\nrelevant,  should  be permitted to be brought on  record  to
\nrender justice to a party.  But the court in doing so should
\nbe cautious not to permit it in a routine.  It should refuse
\nwhere  a party is doing so to delay the proceedings,  harass
\nother  party or doing so for any other ulterior motive.\t The
\ncourts\teven  before admitting should examine,\twhether\t the
\nalleged\t subsequent event has any material bearing on issues
\ninvolved  and which would materially effect the result.\t  In
\nPasupuleti  Venkateswarlu vs.  The Motor & General  Traders,<\/a>
\n(1975)\t1  SCC 770, this Court has very clearly held to\t the
\nsame effect:\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  basic to our processual jurisprudence that\tthe
\nright  to  relief must be judged to exist as on the  date  a
\nsuitor\tinstitutes  the legal proceeding.  Equally clear  is
\nthe  principle\tthat procedure is the handmaid and  not\t the
\nmistress  of the judicial process.  If a fact, after the lis
\nhas  come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right
\nto  relief  or\tthe  manner  of\t moulding  it,\tis   brought
\ndiligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink as
\nit  or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the
\ndecretal  remedy.   Equity  justifies bending the  rules  of
\nprocedure,  where  no  specific\t provision  or\tfairplay  is
\nviolated,  with\t a  view to promote  substantial  justice
\nsubject,  of  course, to the absence of\t other\tdisentitling
\nfactors\t or just circumstances.\t Nor can we contemplate\t any
\nlimitation  on\tthis power to take note of updated facts  to
\nconfine it to the trial Court.\tIf the litigation pends, the
\npower  exists, absent other special circumstances  repelling
\nresort\tto  that course in law or justice.  Rulings on\tthis
\npoint  are  legion, even as situations for  applications  of
\nthis  equitable rule are myriad.  We affirm the\t proposition
\nthat  for  making the right or remedy claimed by  the  party
\njust  and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord
\nwith the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases
\nmust,  take  cautious cognisance of events and\tdevelopments
\nsubsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the
\nrules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed.\n<\/p>\n
    This  Court\t in Ramesh Kumar vs.  Kesho Ram,<\/a> 1992  Supp.
\n(2) SCC 623 held:\n<\/p>\n
    The\t normal\t rule is that in any litigation the  rights
\nand  obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they
\nobtain\tat the commencement of the lis.\t But this is subject
\nto  an exception.  Wherever subsequent events of fact or law
\nwhich  have  a\tmaterial bearing on the entitlement  of\t the
\nparties\t to relief or on aspects which bear on the  moulding
\nof  the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking
\na  cautious  cognizance of the subsequent changes of  fact
\nand  law to mould the relief.  In Lachmeshwar Prasad  Shukul
\nv.   Keshwar  Lal Chaudhuri Chief Justice Sir Maurice  Gwyer
\nobserved:  (AIR p.6)<\/p>\n
    But\t with  regard to the question whether the court\t is
\nentitled  to take into account legislative changes since the
\ndecision  under appeal was give, I desire to point out\tthat
\nthe  rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the United  States
\nis  the\t same as that which I think commends itself  to\t all
\nthree  members\tof  this Court.\t In Patterson v.   State  of
\nAlabama, Hughes C.J.  said:\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave  frequently  held that in the exercise  of\t our
\nappellate  jurisdiction\t we have power not only\t to  correct
\nerror  in  the\tjudgment  under\t review\t but  to  make\tsuch
\ndisposition  of\t the  case  as\tjustice\t requires.   And  in
\ndetermining what justice does require, the court is bound to
\nconsider  any  change,\teither\tin fact or  law,  which\t has
\nsupervened since the judgment was entered.\n<\/p>\n
    This  decision  also  relied in the case  of  Pasupuleti
\nVenkateswarlu vs.  The Motor & General Traders,<\/a> (1975) 1 SCC
\n770 (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  background of the aforesaid well settled  legal
\nprinciple we perused the application of the respondent dated
\n31st March, 1999, before the High Court, for the appointment
\nof a local Commissioner.  It is unfortunate, but the fact is
\nthat  civil revision remained pending in the High Court\t for
\nmore  than 18 years when the said application was made.\t The
\nrelevant  portion  of the application is quoted\t hereunder:-
\nThat  during the pendency of the present revision petition,
\nthe roof of the shop in dispute has also fallen down and the
\ncondition of the shop in dispute has further deteriorated as
\nwould  be clear from a perusal of the photographers attached
\nas  ANNEXURE P-1.  It is well settled that subsequent events
\nwhich  have taken place during the pendency of the  revision
\npetition  can and should be taken into consideration and the
\nrelief moulded accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t respondent through this application states that the
\nroof  of  the  shop  has  since also  fallen  down  and\t its
\ncondition  further deteriorated, during the pendency of this
\nrevision,  hence  sought  for  the appointment\tof  a  local
\nCommissioner  which was allowed.  On these facts, in view of
\nthe  issue, whether the accommodation in question is fit for
\nhuman  habitation, with the long passage of eighteen  years,
\nif fresh assessment was sought through a local Commissioner,
\nit  cannot  be\tsaid, in allowing such Commission  the\tHigh
\nCourt exceeded in its revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    Now,  we  proceed  to examine the  submissions  for\t the
\nappellant,  which  is  primarily  based\t on  the  objections
\nrecorded   in  his  reply   affidavit  to  the\trespondents
\napplication  for the appointment of a local Commissioner and
\nthe  objections\t dated\t10th  January,\t 2000  to  the\tsaid
\nCommissioner  report dated 7th July, 1999.  The objection as
\nrecorded   therein  are;   (a)\t when  the  application\t for
\nejactment  was filed, there was no crack in the wall of\t the
\ndisputed  shop\t(b)  the cracks are from the  Dehori  side
\nwhich  are in possession of the landlord, (c) Similarly when
\nthe  application for ejactment was made the roof of the shop
\nwas  in\t absolute  perfect condition, (d) the  landlord\t has
\ndeliberately  damaged the roof for which the appellant filed
\na  complaint to the police.  Each of these objections has no
\nforce.\tThe objection with respect to the cracks on the wall
\nand  the condition of the roof is, when the application\t for
\neviction  was filed there were no cracks in the wall.\tThis
\nobjection  has\tno  merit,  as\t per  own  evidence  of\t the
\nappellant,  he testified existence of such cracks but  said,
\nfor  this reason it cannot be said it to be unfit for  human
\ncondition.   The submission that court could only take\tinto
\nconsideration on the facts existing on the date of suit only
\nhas also no merit.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tview  of the legal principle we have  stated  herein
\nbefore,\t a  Court could take into  consideration  subsequent
\nfacts,\tevent  or happening which are relevant, and  in\t the
\npresent\t case  after  expiry of about two decades  if  fresh
\nlocal  Commissioner was appointed to find out the  condition
\nof  shop,  and it found two big cracks on two walls  of\t the
\ndisputed  shop,\t it  cannot be said  consideration  of\tsuch
\nevidence  to be illegal.  On the merits it is submitted, one
\nof the cracks is on the Dehori side which is in possession
\nof  the\t landlord.  Even if this to be, this would  make  no
\ndifference  for drawing any inference about the condition of
\nthe wall.  There are always two sides of any wall, cracks on
\nany  side of the wall, if it weakens the wall, may not be on
\nthe  side of such an occupant, it would make no\t difference.
\nEven  if the cracks on the wall are on the other side  which
\nis  a passage, still as it constitutes the same wall as that
\nof  the shop would have the same result.  If the cracks have
\nweakened  the wall, it would crumble not withstanding it  is
\nnot  on\t the  side  of\tthe shop.   This  coupled  with\t the
\ncondition  of  the roof which deteriorated as found  by\t the
\nlocal  Commissioner  would be a valid consideration to\tfind
\nwhether the shop is unfit for human consumption.  So far the
\nsubmission  that the appellant has filed a complaint against
\nthe landlord for causing damage to the roof, we have perused
\nthe  FIR.   Though FIR records allegations directly  against
\nthe  landlord but records no allegation of landlord damaging
\nthe roof.\n<\/p>\n
    Next  submission is based on the objection filed to\t the
\nlocal Commissioner report.  The objection is, the tenant was
\nnot  allowed  to  go on the roof to which  landlord  has  an
\naccess.\t  If  he was permitted he could have pointed out  to
\nthe  Commissioner  that\t hole  has been\t dug  purposely\t and
\ndeliberately  by  the landlord.\t Further,  the\tCommissioner
\nremained closet in the room with the landlord for about half
\nan  hour.   He\tsought\tthis local  Commissioner  report  be
\nignored\t and another local Commissioner be appointed.  We do
\nnot find any error in the High Court judgment in not issuing
\nanother\t local Commissioner.  The appellant merely sought to
\nshow  that  roof  of the disputed shop was  damaged  by\t the
\nlandlord,  to  proof this how Commissioner would  have\tbeen
\nable to find this.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t question  whether  the\t roof  was  damaged  by\t the
\nlandlord  or  was damaged because of the building being\t old
\nand  dilapidated  is a question of fact, proof of  it  could
\nonly be, if at all, through leading evidence and not through
\na  local  Commissioner.\t  A local  Commissioner\t could\tonly
\nreport\tthe  fact of existing condition of the building\t and
\nnot  who  did  it.   It was open for him,  if  appellant  so
\ndesired\t for  praying  to the Court to grant  time  to\tlead
\nevidence  in  this regard.  Since court permitted,  a  local
\nCommissioner to report, so it would have granted the prayers
\nfor  leading  evidence.\t  Hence we do not find\tany  of\t the
\nobjections  raised  by the appellant, have any\tmerit.\t The
\nHigh  Court  considered the said report, and there exists  a
\nhole on the roof which is not disputed.\t It further records,
\neven  if the same is ignored, there are big cracks found  by
\nthe Commissioner on the beginning of the wall extending from
\ntop  to\t more than middle, and another big crack on  another
\nwall.  The report records the depth of the crack, not merely
\nthe length of the crack showing the bad condition of the two
\nwalls  of the disputed shop.  Mere length of crack by itself
\nmay  not have foundation to hold its condition of  structure
\nof  the\t shop  to be bad but it would be,  where  the  crack
\nmeasures  2 x 7.5 depth in one wall on the upper side  and
\n1.5  (illegible)  on  the  lower  side\tand  another  crack
\nmeasuring  2 x 8 from the upper side and 2 x 7 from  the
\nlower  side.   This  along with condition of  roof,  if\t was
\nconsidered  by\tthe High Court to draw the inference of\t the
\ncondition  of  the shop, it cannot be said such\t finding  is
\nperverse  or  illegal which calls for interference  by\tthis
\nCourt.\t Once  the  said  local\t Commissioners\treport\twas
\nbrought\t on  the  record, as part of evidence  to  show\t the
\nsubsequent  event or condition of building, it was incumbent
\non  the\t High Court to have considered it, which it  rightly
\ndid  and  if  in doing so an inference is  drawn,  that\t the
\ndisputed accommodation is not fit for human habitation it is
\nnot  such  which  calls\t  for  interference.   Normally,  as
\nrevisional  court, it could not have embarked upon recording
\nfinding\t of facts but where any subsequent fact was  legally
\nbrought\t on  record,  it  could enter into  and\t decide\t the
\nquestion,  which could inevitably include recording find  of
\nfact.\n<\/p>\n
    Lastly, the submission was that the case may be remitted
\nback  to  the  court for permitting the appellants  to\tlead
\nevidence   to  contradict,  what  is  brought  through\t the
\nCommissioner  report.\tWe have examined this  aspect  also.
\nNormally  if parties so desire, in a case where fresh  facts
\nare  brought  on the record as a relevant subsequent  event,
\nthe  court grants such prayer.\tIn the present case, we find
\nthat  before the High Court, at no stage, the appellant made
\nany  such  request.   Even  in this appeal  before  us,\t the
\nappellant  could not point any such ground been raised.\t  It
\nis  not\t even  pleaded nor raised any ground that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  refused such a request for leading any such evidence.
\nIn  view  of these facts in the present case we do not\tfind
\nany  merit  even  of this last submission.  In view  of\t the
\nfinding\t recorded  by  us we record our conclusions  to\t the
\naforesaid  two\tquestions  raised  in  the  appeals  to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t On the facts and circumstances of this case,  where
\nfresh  evidence\t was permitted to be brought on the  record,
\nreversing  of  the finding of fact by the High Court,  while
\nexercising  Revisional\tjurisdiction, cannot be said  to  be
\nsuch  that  it\tacted beyond its jurisdiction vested  to  it
\nunder  the law.\t (2) Once, court could bring on the  record,
\nsubsequent  fact,  event  or  happening,  which\t has  direct
\nbearing\t on  the issues or relief claimed, on the facts\t and
\ncircumstances of this case, then the High Court committed no
\nerror  of jurisdiction to permit the Commissioner report  to
\nbe  placed  on\tthe record and then on which to\t rely  while
\nexercising  its\t revisional  power under sub- section  5  of
\nSection 15 of the aforesaid Act.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tview of the aforesaid findings recorded by us we  do
\nnot  find any merit in these appeals, which are\t accordingly
\ndismissed with costs on the parties.\n<\/p>\n
    Lastly,   learned\tcounsel\t made\trequest\t  to   grant
\nsubstantial  time to the appellant to vacate the premises in
\nquestion  as  he has been in possession of this shop  for  a
\nvery  long  time,  otherwise it would  affect  his  business
\nadversely.   Looking to the facts and circumstances of\tthis
\ncase  we grant time to the appellant to vacate the  premises
\nin  question by or before 31st December, 2001 subject to the
\nusual undertaking to be filed within four weeks from today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 Author: Misra. Bench: A.P. Misra, D.P. Mohapatra. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1057-1058 of 2001 PETITIONER: LEKH RAJ Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNI LAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/02\/2001 BENCH: A.P. Misra & D.P. Mohapatra. JUDGMENT: L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J MISRA. J. Leave granted. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3953,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\",\"name\":\"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001","datePublished":"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001"},"wordCount":3953,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001","name":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-03T15:38:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lekh-raj-vs-muni-lal-ors-on-6-february-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lekh Raj vs Muni Lal & Ors on 6 February, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}