Whether the appellate court should interfere with the decision of the trial court on the question of balance of hardship under rent law?

It is well settled that an Appeal Court will be ordinarily slow to interfere with the decision of the trial Judge on questions like the balance of hardship, for this is primarily a question of fact. To succeed, the appellant must how that the trial Judge misdirected himself on a question of law or that he based his judgment on some finding of fact on which there was no evidence. If in drawing up the statutory balance sheet of hardship under Section 13(2), there is some evidence of hardship on each side the decision of the trial Judge must be normally final. The appellate Court can interfere in certain circumstance, for instance, if there is no evidence of hardship on one side or if the trial Judge has held to be relevant some matter which in law is not relevant such as the absence of a view of a neighbouring hill, river, tree or something pleasant of that kind.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Special Civil Appln. Nos. 2185, 2187 and 2194 of 1969

Decided On: 14.03.1972

 Kishinchand Murjimal Vs. Bal Kalavati 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Vaidya, J.

Citation: 1972 MHLJ 822, AIR 1973 Bom 46

Read full judgment here:Click here

Print Page