Topic
Supreme Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interference with concurrent findings in a landlord-tenant dispute, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be exercised to reappraise evidence. The ruling reinforces the high threshold for overturning concurrent judicial findings in rent control matters.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a transfer application under Section 24 CPC cannot be entertained if a revision remedy under Section 115 CPC is available, reinforcing that procedural alternatives must be exhausted before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. This clarifies the hierarchy of remedies for litigants challenging interlocutory orders in civil suits across Uttar Pradesh.
Gauhati High Court rules that a landlord’s bona fide requirement for self-employment suffices for eviction under the Rent Control Act, even without documentary proof of business plans. The court affirms that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot re-examine concurrent findings unless they are perverse, setting a precedent for eviction disputes in Assam and neighboring states.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere ownership of property is insufficient to establish jurisdiction in eviction suits under rent control laws; without evidence of a rent payment history or a formal tenancy agreement, the Small Causes Court lacks authority to adjudicate. This clarifies a critical jurisdictional barrier for landlords and protects long-term occupants from baseless eviction claims grounded solely in title.