IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
R.C.REV. NO. 219 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.58 OF
2014 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-IV), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE ORDER DATED
28.08.2014 IN R.C.P.NO.70 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT
(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONERS:
1 B. LEELAMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. T. MURALEEDHARAN,
T.C. NO. 5/546, KOWDIAR WARD, PEROORKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MURALI NIVAS,
BGRA 73, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 ARUN,
S/O. T. MURALEEDHARAN, T.C. NO. 5/546,
KOWDIAR WARD, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT MURALI NIVAS, BGRA 73, INDIRA NAGAR,
PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 ANJANA,
D/O. T. MURALEEDHARAN, T.C. NO. 5/546,
KOWDIAR WARD, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT MURALI NIVAS, BGRA 73, INDIRA NAGAR,
PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 P.K. BABUGOPAN,
S/O. PADMANABHAKURUP, T.C. NO. 5/546,
KOWDIAR WARD, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT MURALI NIVAS, BGRA 73, INDIRA NAGAR,
PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2
R.C.Rev.No.219 2020
5 P.K. SURESHKUMAR,
S/O. PADMANABHAKURUP, T.C. NO. 5/546,
KOWDIAR WARD, PEROORKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MURALI NIVAS,
BGRA 73, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 SAM SUJENDRA KUMAR
S/O. DAVIS, S.P COTTAGE, RAMESWARAN WARD,
AMARAVILA POST, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695122.
2 PRAMEELA SAM SUJENDRA KUMAR,
W/O. SAM SUJENDRA KUMAR, S.P.COTTAGE,
RAMESWARAN WARD, AMARAVILA POST,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695122.
BY ADV SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON 29.06.2022 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.C.Rev.No.219 2020
ORDER
Ajithkumar, J.
The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondents-landlords filed R.C.P.No.70 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thiruvananthapuram, seeking eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule shop room under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. That petition was allowed. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-IV), Thiruvananthapuram as R.C.A.No.58 of 2014. That appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed R.P.No.3204 of 2019 seeking review of the said judgment. Review Petition was dismissed as per Order dated 05.11.2020. That order is under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4R.C.Rev.No.219 2020
3. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Review Petition holding that none of the grounds stated in the petition were sufficient to review the impugned judgment. The grounds set out in the review petition were that the findings of the Appellate Authority regarding need for reconstruction of the building was incorrect, the contention that the approved plan and permit for the reconstruction were obtained fraudulently was not considered in its proper perspective and that there was suppression of material facts.
4. The Appellate Authority considered all the said grounds in detail and found that those were, sometimes, would be grounds for an appeal, but never be grounds for a review.
5. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the Apex Court after referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372], Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] held thus: 5 R.C.Rev.No.219 2020 "Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."
6. This principle was reiterated in Sasi (D) Through LRs. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [(2017) 4 SCC 692] and followed by this Court in Babu M. and others v. Union of India and others [2017 (3) KLJ NOC 13].
7. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, none of the grounds urged by the petitioners in R.P.No.3204 of 2019 is a reason for invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. After having an anxious consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the Appellate Authority 6 R.C.Rev.No.219 2020 rightly had held that the petitioners failed to make out any ground for a review. In the said circumstances, we hold that this revision is devoid of any merit. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr