Kerala High Court
B. Leelamma vs Sam Sujendra Kumar on 29 June, 2022
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.
R.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:
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
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
