Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.M. Lodha, C.J.I., Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and S.A. Bobde

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, C.J.I.

1. This group of eleven appeals and three special leave petitions has been referred to the 5-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict into the two 3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and Ors. [MANU/SC/0262/1993 : (1993) 1 SCC 499] and the other, Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors. [MANU/SC/0399/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 1422]. Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors. [MANU/SC/0399/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 1422] has followed Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and Ors. [MANU/SC/0292/1960 : AIR 1960 SC 655]. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words "legality and propriety" Under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Haryana Rent Control Act'), was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) Under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority. The Appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and Ors. [MANU/SC/0262/1993 : (1993) 1 SCC 499] in support of its contention that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors. [MANU/SC/0399/1988 : AIR 1988 SC 1422] wherein it has been held that the expression "legality and propriety" enables the revisional Court to reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate Court.