The Gujarat High Court has clarified the scope of its jurisdiction when exercising revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, emphasising that this power is limited and supervisory in nature rather than an opportunity to reassess evidence afresh. The case before the court involved a revision petition filed under Section 29(2) challenging an order of the lower rent court that had decided in favour of the landlord in an eviction dispute. The tenant’s widow, as the appellant-defendant in the proceedings, sought revision of that decision, but the High Court underscored that the provision does not authorise it to function as a second appellate forum that re-weighs or re-appreciates the evidence already considered by the courts below. In its ruling, the bench noted that the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 29(2) is narrow and specifically focused on correcting legal errors or jurisdictional defects apparent on the face of the record, and does not permit the High Court to substitute its own view of the evidence where concurrent findings by the lower courts are supported by material evidence. The court explained that the purpose of the provision is to ensure that decisions rendered by the rent court and appellate forum conform to law and do not suffer from any obvious legal flaw, but not to engage in a comprehensive re-evaluation of factual findings which would effectively transform the revision into a second appeal.
The High Court observed that interference in revision is appropriate only where the lower court’s order exhibits a clear error of law, or where there has been a jurisdictional excess or fundamental legal defect that goes to the root of the case. It emphasised that absent such a material legal infirmity, the revisional court must respect the factual determinations made by the subordinate tribunals and refrain from embarking on a fresh inquiry into the evidence. The bench explained that Section 29(2) explicitly states that no further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under subsection (1), but it allows the High Court to call for the case and “pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit” in order to satisfy itself that the order appealed from was according to law. This statutory framework, the court held, demonstrates that the scope of revision is circumscribed to supervisory review of legal propriety rather than extensive fact-finding.
In the case at hand, the tenant’s widow had challenged the order upholding the landlord’s claim, arguing errors in the lower courts’ conclusions. However, the High Court reiterated that unless it is shown that the courts below committed a manifest legal error or the order suffers from an obvious defect, the High Court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact simply because a different view might be possible. The court insisted that its primary role under Section 29(2) is to guard against illegality or misapplication of law, and that factual disputes which the trial and appellate forums have already resolved on evidence cannot be re-opened on mere contention.
The High Court’s ruling serves to reinforce the limited and supervisory character of revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act, aiming to maintain swift and final resolution of rent disputes by avoiding protracted litigation that would otherwise arise if revisions became de facto second appeals on evidence. By laying down that High Court interference is appropriate only for clear legal flaws and not for reappraising evidence to arrive at independent findings, the court underscored that Section 29(2) is a specific and restricted remedy designed to correct fundamental legal errors and ensure that the orders under rent control legislation are rendered according to law rather than to provide litigants with another avenue for contesting factual determinations.
 Of Bombay Rent Act){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.