AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2507 ::1999 AIR SCW 2666 ::1999 SCFBRC 330 ::1999 (5) Kant LD 263 ::1999 (7) ADSC 69 ::1999 (2) UJ (SC) 1261 ::(1999) 80 DLT 731 ::1999 (6) SCC 222 ::(1999) 4 Scale 334 ::1999 (3) CurCC 181 ::1999 HRR 396 ::1999 (2) GujLH 891 ::(1999) 3 Ker LT 20 ::(1999) 2 RenCJ 388 ::1999 (2) RenCR 141 ::(1999) 2 RentLR 211 ::(1999) 3 SCJ 215 ::1999 (4) LRI 105 ::1999 (6) Supreme 330 ::1999 (8) SRJ 89 ::(1999) 5 JT 201 (SC) ::1999 (5) JT 201

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. N. Khare, R. C. Lahoti , JJ

(A) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.25B(8)— Revisional jurisdiction - Re-appraisal of evidence - Can be entered into only for limited purpose to test whether order of Rent Controller is according to law or not - Finding of Rent Controller - When can be said to be "not according to law". Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.115— The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under S. 25-B (8) is not so limited as is under S. 115, CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a Court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of 'whether it is according to law'. For that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion for the established facts as betray the lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller 'not according to law' calling for an interf....