High Court Affirms Non-Interference with Concurrent Findings in Rent Suits and Revisions; Binding on Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | A227/2195/2022 of RAKESH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, COURT NO. 09, RAEBARELI AND 3 OTHERS |
| CNR | UPHC020343332022 |
| Decision Date | 11-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed on merits |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Article 227 Cr.P.C.) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and revisional courts in rent and ejectment proceedings? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court under Article 227 does not ordinarily re-appraise or re-weigh evidence on concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts. Concurrent findings on the question of non-payment of rent, affirmed by both trial and revisional courts, do not warrant interference absent a patent perversity or jurisdictional error. The writ petition under Article 227 is not a substitute for appeal or revision against factual findings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The landlord sued for arrears of rent and ejectment, alleging non-payment despite notice. The trial court framed ten issues, examined the rent agreement and other evidence, and decreed the suit on finding non-payment. The revisional court dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court’s findings. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| ✔︎ Precedent Followed | Confirms that concurrent findings of fact by trial and revisional courts are not to be disturbed under Article 227 Cr.P.C. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Article 227 petitions cannot serve as a forum to challenge concurrent factual findings of subordinate courts.
- Highlights that non-payment of rent even after High Court directions can independently justify dismissal of a petition.
- Underscores the importance of compliance with trial court and revisional court orders before invoking supervisory jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petition challenged two orders: the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment dated 31.10.2019 and the revisional order dated 19.04.2022.
- Both courts recorded detailed findings on ten issues, particularly non-payment of rent despite service of notice.
- The revisional court affirmed the trial court’s analysis of the rent agreement and evidence.
- In absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity, concurrent findings of fact are not amenable to interference under Article 227.
- Petition dismissed for lack of merit; additional point that rent remained unpaid as per court directions further warranted dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The trial court erred in finding non-payment of rent and decreeing ejectment.
- The revisional court wrongly dismissed the revision, failing to appreciate documentary evidence.
Respondent
- The rent has not been paid even after High Court directions, reinforcing the validity of the decrees.
- No ground exists to disturb concurrent findings of fact under Article 227.
Factual Background
A landlord instituted a rent-ejectment suit alleging non-payment of rent despite notice. The trial court framed ten issues, examined the rent agreement and evidence, and decreed the suit on finding non-payment. The tenant’s revision was dismissed by the revisional court, affirming the trial court’s conclusions. The present writ petition under Article 227 challenged both orders.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to supervise subordinate courts but does not authorize re-appraisal of concurrent factual findings.
- The judgment emphasizes that supervisory jurisdiction is sparingly exercised and not as an additional appellate forum on facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or guidelines were issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔︎ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:AHC-LKO:46914
- CNR UPHC020343332022