Kerala High Court
D.Sarathchandra Das vs Sheeba Rajesh on 4 April, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
RCRev. No.80 of 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 80 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2023 IN RCA NO.1 OF 2021
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV,
PATHANAMTHITTA/IV ADDL. M.A.C.T. ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2021 IN RCP NO.1 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
------
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
D.SARATHCHANDRA DAS, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O.DAMODHARAN UNNITHAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL
HOUSE, PALAMAROOR MURI,PRAMADAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN - 689646.
BY ADVS.
K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
AMRUTHA KALYANI P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHEEBA RAJESH, AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O.LATE RAJESH, SASTHAMKOVIL MADATHIL,
VETTIPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689645.
2 SREEJA RAJESH (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAJESH, SAASTHAMKOVIL MADATHIL VETTIPURAM
MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
GUARDIAN, SHEEBA RAJESH, AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAJESH, SAASTHAMKOVIL MADATHIL VETTIPURAM
MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev. No.80 of 2024 2
ORDER
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
This revision petition is filed under Section 20 of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short,
the 'Act') by the tenant of a shop room bearing door No.
IX/1051 of the Pathanamthitta Municipality, which originally
belonged to one Sri.Rajesh S., who passed away during the
pendency of the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Control
Court, Pathanamthitta - RCP No.1 of 2014. Upon his death, his
wife and minor daughter were impleaded as additional
petitioners 2 and 3 and by an order dated 29.1.2021, the Rent
Control Court, Pathanamthitta has ordered eviction under
Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The appeal filed by
the petitioner-tenant as R.C.A. No.1 of 2021 before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority (Additional District and Sessions
Judge-IV), Pathanamthitta, was rejected by an order dated
06.10.2023. It is against the above referred orders, that the
present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant.
2. The landlord filed RCP No.1 of 2014, pointing out
that there is arrears of rent from December, 2011 on account of
which, the tenant is to be evicted under Section 11(2)(b) of the
Act. It was also contended that the building in question was an
old one, which requires reconstruction. On account of this, it
was contended that eviction is to be ordered under Section
11(4)(iv) of the Act. It was also contended that the premises
after reconstruction is required for running a business by the
respondent-landlord.
3. The tenant objected to the contentions raised as above
and adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The
landlord also produced documentary evidence apart from oral
evidence. The Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta, by an order
dated 29.01.2021, disposed of the petition filed before it,
finding that:
i. In view of the arrears of rent, the eviction has to
be effected under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.
ii. In view of the need for reconstruction of the
building in question, eviction under Section
11(4)(iv) of the Act is required.
iii. The landlords were directed to complete the
reconstruction of the building within a period of
twelve months from the date of surrender of the
vacant possession of the building.
iv. The claim of the landlords as regards the
requirement for starting a new business in the
reconstructed building was found against. On
account of this, an unconditional order of
eviction cannot be granted.
v. The tenant shall have the first option to occupy
the reconstructed building as per the prevailing
rate of rent by virtue of the third proviso to
Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.
Thus, the Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta disposed of the
petition filed before it.
4. The petitioner-tenant and the respondents-landlords
preferred separate appeals as RCA Nos. 1 of 2021 and 7 of
2021 respectively, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV), Pathanamthitta.
The said authority has disposed of both the above appeals by a
common judgment dated 06.10.2023, finding that the landlords
claim for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the
Act is bona fide and therefore, the appeals by the petitioner-
tenant cannot be entertained. The appeal by the respondents-
landlords against the finding of the Rent Control Court,
Pathanamthitta extending the benefit of the third proviso to
Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act is also found without any merits.
Therefore, by the impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023, both
appeals are rejected.
5. It is against the findings in RCA No.1 of 2021 that the
present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-tenant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-
tenant in support of the Rent Control Petition.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner-tenant that the Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta,
as well as the Appellate Authority ought to have noticed that
the respondents-landlords have no consistent case insofar as
the building in question was claimed to be required for the
proposed business of the landlords when it has come out in
evidence that the business was one conducted by another
person. It is further contended that as regards the arrears of
rent also, the findings rendered were not correct or legal.
8. It is under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act that
this revision petition is presented before this Court by the
petitioner-tenant. A reading of Section 20 of the Act would
make it clear that this Court while considering a revision
petition filed under Section 20 of the Act is not acting as a first
or second court of appeal. It is only a revisional jurisdiction
that is conferred upon this Court. Every order issued by the
Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot
be interfered by this Court. There cannot be any re-
appreciation of evidence also. In this connection, the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma
V. Kallyani Sulochana and Others [(1993) 1 SCC 499] is
referred to. In the said judgment, at paragraph 20, the Apex
Court has laid down the scope and ambit of Section 20 of the
Act as follows:
"20. We are afraid this approach of the High Court is
wrong. Even the wider language of Section 20 of the
Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a
second court of appeal. Otherwise the distinction
between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get
obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-
appreciating the entire evidence both oral or
documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report
(Exts.C1 and C2 mahazar). In our considered view, the
High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional
jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word
"propriety" it cannot mean that there could be a re-
appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court
can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-
appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining
itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order
impugned before it. Therefore, we are unable to agree
with the reasoning of the High Court with reference to
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction."
9. In the light of the above principles laid down by the
Apex Court, the re-appreciation of the evidence as contended
by the petitioner-tenant cannot be carried out in this revision
petition. The above principles laid down by the Apex Court
have been later approved by a constitution bench in the
decision reported as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited V. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] and again in
the decision rendered as Thankamony Amma and Others v.
Omana Amma N. and Others [AIR 2019 SC 3803].
10. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also perused the
orders passed by the Rent Control Court, Pathanamthitta and
the Appellate Authority. It is seen that the Rent Control Court,
Pathanamthitta has specifically found that there is arrears of
rent, which fact has not been controverted by the petitioner-
tenant in a manner known to law. Similarly, the eviction under
Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act ordered by the Rent Control Court
has also been upheld by the Appellate Authority while
considering the contentions raised by the petitioner-tenant.
Regarding the evidence gathered by both sides, it has been
found that the claim that the building requires reconstruction is
genuine. Reference is also made to the approved plan
[Ext.A3(a)] obtained from the Pathanamthitta Municipality in
that regard.
11. The findings rendered by the Rent Control Court,
Pathanamthitta and the Appellate Authority are concurrent
findings recorded against the petitioner-tenant. We find no
reason to interfere with respect to the above findings.
Resultantly, the revision petition herein is only to be dismissed.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would
submit that the petitioner-tenant may be granted time to
vacate the shop room. He would also submit that the tenant is
prepared to clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent,
within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and he shall
continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period,
without any default, till he gives vacant possession of the shop
room to the landlords.
13. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision
Petition is dismissed declining interference on the impugned
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the
impugned order of the Rent Control Court; however, by
granting four months' time to the petitioner-tenant, to
surrender vacant possession of the shop room to the
respondents-landlords subject to the following conditions:
(i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition
shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court
or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within
two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order, expressing an unconditional
undertaking that he will surrender vacant
possession of the shop room to the petitioners-
landlords within four months from the date of this
order and that, he shall not induct third parties into
possession of the shop room and further he shall
conduct any business in the petition schedule
building only on the strength of a valid
licence/permission/consent issued by the local
authority/statutory authorities;
(ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition
shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if
any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution
Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order,
and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding
months, without any default;
(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondent-
tenant in the Rent Control Petition failing to comply
with any one of the conditions stated above, the
time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant
possession of the shop room will stand cancelled
automatically and the petitioners-landlords will be at
liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of
eviction.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
