Kerala High Court
Rafeeka vs Muhammedali on 9 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 119 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 17/2017 ON THE FILE
OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-III),MANJERI
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 34/2014 ON THE
FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAFEEKA, AGED 41 YEARS
D/O. NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY,
W/O ABDUL RASAQUE,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O)
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
2 MOOSA, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O)
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
3 BASMA, AGED 42 YEARS
D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAHAMMED,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O)
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O
ALLAPRA ABU ALIAS ABOOBACKER, ERNAD TALUK,
CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM)
4 ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
2
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MUHAMMED ASLAM,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KALATHINGAL MUHAMMEDALI,
CHEMBAKUTH, EDAVANNA (P O)
EDAVANNA AMSOM DESOM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.
BY ADVS.NIRMAL.S
VEENA HARI
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev.120/2021 & 121/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 120 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 19/2017 ON THE FILE
OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-III),MANJERI
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 36/2014 ON THE
FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAFEEKA, AGED 41 YEARS
D/O NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY,
W/O ABDUL RASAQUE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328.
2 MOOSA, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328..
3 BASMA, AGED 42 YEARS
D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAMMED,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328.
(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O ALLAPRA ABU ALIAS ABOOBACKER, ERNAD TALUK,
CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM).
4 ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328.
4
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O THAZHEPARAMBAN MOOSSA HAJI,
VATTAKKAVIL HOUSE,
KAVANOOR AMSOM DESOM,
KAVANOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673639.
2 ABDULLA, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O MACHERI VEETTIL AHAMMED,
KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM,
KAVANOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673639.
3 MUHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS
S/O ULLATTIL ABDULLA, KARUVAMBRAM P.O,
KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676123.
4 ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O ATHIMANNIL ALAVI HAJI,
KARUVAMBRAM P.O, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676123.
5 K.AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 77 YEARS
S/O THENU, KANNIYATH VEETTIL P.O,
THRIKKALANGODE, THRIKKALANGODE AMSOM,
KOORAMKULAM DESOM, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676121.
BY ADV K.RAKESH
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..119/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 121 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 18/2017 ON THE FILE
OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-III),MANJERI
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 35/2014 ON THE
FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 RAFEEKA
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY, W/O ABDUL RASAQUE,
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM
(P O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
2 MOOSA,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM
DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
3 BASMA,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAHAMMED, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM
AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O), MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O
ALLAPRA ABOO ALIAS ABOOBACKER, CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM
DESOM ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673
633)
4
ABDUL RAZACK,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI,
6
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM
(P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.
BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
VINOD RAVINDRANATH
MEENA.A.
K.C.KIRAN
M.R.MINI
M.DEVESH
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
THAREEQ ANVER K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MOYIKKAL MUHAMMEDALI
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O UNNIASSAN, KURUMBALANGODE VILLAGE,
POOLAPPADAM PATHAR (P O)
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 334.
2 K. SUDHA,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O KANISSEERI PUTHANVEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN,
ERNAD TALUK, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM,
MELAKKAM DESOM , KARUVAMBRAM P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN CODE 676 123.
3 K.R.SAJI,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O KANISSEERI PUTHANVEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN,
ERNAD TALUK, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM,
MELAKKAM DESOM, KARUVAMBRAM P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-676 123.
4 SHAHANAS,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O CHATHOLI VEETTIL ALAVI, ERNAD TALUK,
KARAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, THRIKKALANGODE (P O)
MALAPPURAM PIN-676 121.
BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..119/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2022
ORDER
C.S.Sudha, J.
These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed
against the judgments dated 03/03/2021 in R.C.A.No.17, 18 and 19 of 2017
on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Manjeri, which
appeals have been filed against the common order dated 25/02/2017 in
R.C.P.No.34, 35 and 36 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC),
Manjeri. The revision petitioners herein are the appellants and the
petitioners-landlords in the R.C.Ps. The respondents herein are the
respondents in the appeal and the respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps. The
parties and documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps.
2. R.C.P.No.34/2014, 35/2014 and 36/2014 were filed by the
petitioners four in number, seeking eviction of the respondents under Section
11(3) of the Act. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner
and the fourth petitioner, the husband of the third petitioner. According to
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
the petitioners, they are the owners of the building housing the petition
schedule rooms. The schedule rooms are situated in the ground floor of the
larger building owned by the petitioners. In R.C.P.No.34/2014, there is only
one respondent-tenant. In R.C.P.No.35/2014, the petition schedule consists
of three rooms, i.e., item no.1 is stated to have been let out to the first
respondent; item no.2 to respondents 2 and 3 and item no.3 to the fourth
respondent. In R.C.P.No.36/2014, the petition schedule consists of five
rooms, that is, item no.1 has been let out to the first respondent; item no.2 to
the second respondent; item no.3 to the third respondent; item no.4 to the
fourth respondent and item no.5 to the fifth respondent. According to the
petitioners, the building was purchased on 23/05/2013 with the intention of
starting a business in Chinese goods, i.e., electrical items, electronic items,
mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses etc. by importing them or by other
means in the entire ground floor of the building. The walls dividing or
partitioning the rooms can be removed and slight alterations/ modifications
be made in the ground floor to suit the business intended to be started on a
large scale. It is also alleged that petitioners 2 and 4 are employed abroad.
They had enough of working abroad and therefore they intend to return
home for good. They need to start the proposed business for generating
income after they quit their jobs and return home and so they bona fide
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
require the petition schedule rooms for their own occupation.
3. The respondents in all the R.C.Ps. except the first respondent in
R.C.P.No.36/2014 who was set ex parte, entered appearance and filed
counter denying the need alleged. According to them it is a mere ruse for
eviction. They also claimed the protection under the second proviso to
Section 11(3) of the Act.
4. The RCC, as per order in I.A.No.493/2015 allowed joint trial of
the three R.C.Ps. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A29 were
marked on the side of the petitioners. RWs.1 to 6 were examined and
Exts.B1 to B21 were marked on the side of the respondents. The advocate
commissioner was examined as CW1 and the reports and plans have been
marked as Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a). On an appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, the RCC found the need to be not bona fide and
hence dismissed all the three R.C.Ps. The petitioners filed three appeals,
namely, R.C.A.No.17/2017, 18/2017 and 19/2017 against the order of the
RCC. The RCAA by three separate judgments, dismissed the appeals
confirming the order of the RCC. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of
the RCC and RCAA, the petitioners-landlords have come up in revision.
5. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the
concurrent findings of the RCC or the RCAA suffer from any illegality,
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
irregularity or impropriety.
6. Heard Adv. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel for the
revision petitioners and Adv.Veena Hari, the learned counsel for the
respondent in R.C.R.No.119/2021, Adv.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for
the respondent in R.C.R.No.120/2021 and Adv.Dinesh Mathew J.Muricken,
the learned counsel for the respondent in R.C.R.No.121/2021.
7. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge
the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an Appellate
Authority. The power of revision is limited to make a scrutiny of records to
satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in Section 20. It cannot convert
itself into evidence collecting or fact-finding Court. The scope of
interference by the revisional court is restricted to cases where the RCC or
RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of
evidence, or applied wrong principles of law. The revisional authority has to
satisfy itself of the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or
proceedings of appellate authority. Where there is no illegality, impropriety
or irregularity in the orders of the RCC or the RCAA, there is no
justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of
the Act.
8. Before we go into the arguments advanced on behalf of the
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
petitioners, we refer to an argument of mis-joinder of cause of action
advanced on behalf of the respondents, which has been answered in favour
of the latter by the RCAA. The respondents contend that R.C.P.No.35 and
36/2014 are not maintainable because there has been a misjoinder of causes
of action. There are four different tenants in R.C.P.No.35/2014 and five
different tenants in R.C.P.No.36/2014. Therefore, relying on a Full Bench
decision of this Court in Jamal v. Safia Beevi, 2005(2) KLT 359 (F.B.), the
argument is that the said R.C.Ps. are not maintainable.
8.1. The Full Bench in Jamal (supra) observed that when a landlord
files a petition under Section 11(3) against various tenants occupying
separate portions of the same structure, different consideration may follow
and the defenses available to the tenant would also be different. One of the
tenants may be able to defeat the claim of the landlord not only on the
ground that there is no bona fides in the need alleged but also on the ground
that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3).
Another tenant may be in a position to establish the benefit of the first
proviso to Section 11(3). Yet another tenant occupying a portion of the same
structure may not be successful in claiming the benefit of the second proviso
to Section 11(3) of the Act. It has further been held that, even if the cause of
action against various tenants is the same, the defense available to the
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
tenants against the landlord may be distinct and different. In such a case
there is likely to be conflict of interest between the tenants inter se and so a
single petition for eviction against more than one tenant is bad for mis-
joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of parties. Further, it has also
been held that mis-joinder of cause of action is regarded only as an
irregularity and not a ground on which the petition could be dismissed unless
the objection to the same has been taken at the appropriate time. Objection
regarding mis-joinder has to be taken at the earliest opportunity in the event
of which, the landlord would be able to file separate petitions. In a case
where such an objection is not taken at the earliest opportunity, the Court
will not or should not interfere unless there is a total failure of justice. It has
also been held that the RCC can always consolidate the Rent Control
Petitions if there are similar or identity on all the matters in issue in the
petitions.
8.2. In the case on hand, objection regarding mis-joinder is not seen
addressed by the RCC. However, the RCAA has dealt with the same in
R.C.A.No.18/2017 and R.C.A.No.19/2017 and answered the same in favour
of the respondents. The contention regarding mis-joinder of causes of action
is seen taken by some of the respondents in their counter to
R.C.P.No.35/2014 and 36/2014. However, this point does not seem to have
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
been pressed into service during the trial stage or during the course of
arguments and hence the RCC has not answered the same. The argument
regarding mis-joinder of causes of action as held in Jamal (Supra) ought to
have been taken up at the earliest possible opportunity. That does not seem
to have been done in this case. Moreover, the respondents have also not
been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to them or that there
has been a total failure of justice. That being the position, the argument that
the R.C.Ps. are not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder of causes of
action is only liable to be rejected.
9. As noticed earlier, in the R.C.Ps. the need alleged is that the
petitioners want to start a business in Chinese goods like, electrical items,
electronic items, mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses etc. on a large
scale. The items are intended to be procured by importing them or by other
means. (ഹരജപട ക മറ നല നത യ എടപ ഹരജക ര തര വ ങ യത തനന തര
വ ങ യ ആനക എടപന തന നല (Ground floor) മഴവന യ ച#ര$ ച#നസ
നര'തമ യ electrical item, electronic item, mobile accessories, flowers, Toys,
dresses തടങ യ വസകള ഒന യ ഇറ മത ന#യചത മറ തര$ചല സ/നമ യ ഉ$മ
വശ/ സമ യ ഒര കചവട4 ന#ച5ണത ചലക ണ). In the proof affidavit of the fourth
petitioner who was examined as PW1, it is stated that the intention is to start
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
a business in Chinese goods and if that is not possible, a business in home
appliances and hardware on a wholesale and retail basis. At the same time, it
is also stated that as soon as the rooms are got vacated, all arrangements
have been made for importing the Chinese goods (ഹരജപട ക എടപനല ത ന
നലയല (Ground floor) കട യ ന നര ഒ പച ആ സല$ ച#നസ നര' തമ യ
electrical item, electronic item, mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses
തടങ യ സ ധനങള ഒന യ ഇറ മത ന#യചത ആയത സ ധധമ ക $ പക4 Home
appliance-ഉ4 Hardwares-ഉ4 ച#രന സ ധനങളനട ഒര wholesale & retail
ബസ നചA തടചങണനമന ണ ത രമ നച ടളത. മറ കള ഒ ഞ ക ടനചത നട ച#നസ
സ ധനങള ഒന ച ഇറക ക ട നള എല സ4വധ നങള4 ആയടണ ). If all
arrangements have already been made for the purchase of Chinese items,
then why again vacillate? It is no doubt true that the pleadings in a
proceeding under the Act require a liberal interpretation. However, it
appears from the pleadings and evidence on record that the petitioners have
not made up their mind as to what business they intend to start. As pointed
out by the respondents, this is one aspect to doubt the bona fides of the claim
put forward.
9.1. Ext.A2 series are supposed to be the purchase agreements
entered into with the Chinese manufacturers for the purchase of Chinese
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
goods. The said documents are mostly seen prepared in Chinese. According
to PW1, the purchase agreement was signed in Saudi Arabia. He however
deposed that he is unaware of the contents of Ext.A2 series. He also
admitted that Ext.A2 series does not contain the signature of the
manufacturer(s) with whom the agreements are alleged to have been entered
into. Our attention was also drawn to Ext.A26 which is a request given by a
Chinese Pharmaceutical company to the Consulate-General of People's
Republic of China to grant a double entry visa to their customer, viz., Abdul
Razak, that is, the 4th petitioner in the RC.Ps. This probalises the case put
forward by the respondents that these documents actually relate to the import
of goods by the pharmaceutical company in which PW1 is working, for
being given as compliments to doctors, pharmacists etc.
10. Further, PW1 in the box claims that he was terminated from
service as per Ext.A24 termination letter. This stand appears to have been
taken in an attempt by the petitioners to establish the bona fides of the need
put forward and the necessity for starting the proposed business. However, the
said attempt has backfired because PW1 admitted in his cross examination that
even after a year of the issuance of Ext.A24 letter, he still continues to be in
the employment of the Company, which Company is purported to have
terminated him as per Ext.A24. It is no doubt true, as pointed out on behalf
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
of the petitioners that it is absolutely unnecessary for the second or the
fourth petitioner to resign their jobs, come back home, remain idle and
patiently wait for years together to get vacant possession of the tenanted
premises, in order to succeed under Section 11(3) of the Act. However,
when they have taken up a specific case that PW1 has been terminated and
has also produced evidence to substantiate the same, then it is their duty to
stand by the case and establish the same, in which attempt they have failed.
All these aspects prompted the RCC as well as the RCAA to doubt the bona
fides of the need put forward by the petitioners.
11. As held by the Constitution Bench in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 3708, a finding of fact
recorded by the RCC or the RCAA if perverse, or has been arrived at
without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no
evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if
allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, then it is
open to correction, because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In
that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the
Act is entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. In
the case on hand, we find no such infirmity committed either by the RCC or
the RCAA and so no interference by this Court is called for.
R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021
In the result, the rent control revisions are dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ami/
