Kerala High Court

E.V. Jomon vs P.A Subramanya Iyyer on 25 March, 2025

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        1
                                                           2025:KER:24734

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                        &

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

     TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                         RCREV. NO. 252 OF 2024

          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2024 IN RCA NO.222 OF

2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ARISING OUT

OF   THE    ORDER   DATED    30.09.2019     IN   RCP   NO.44   OF   2015   OF

PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

              JOY JOSEPH
              AGED 62 YEARS
              SON OF CHAKARAMAKKAL JOSEPH, JOSEBE & CO.,
              XII/300, R.S. ROAD , THRISSUR, PIN - 680001


              BY ADV D.SREEKUMAR


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

      1       SUBRAMANYA IYYER
              AGED 90 YEARS
              S/O P.A. IYYER, ALIAS P. ANANTHA NARAYANA IYYER,
              OWNER OF KAMALAVILAS BUILDINGS, R. S. ROAD,
              THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        2
                                                   2025:KER:24734

     2       P. A. KRISHNA IYYER
             AGED 86 YEARS
             S/O P.A. IYYER, ALIAS P. ANANTHA NARAYANA IYYER,
             OWNER OF KAMALAVILAS BUILDINGS, R. S. ROAD,
             THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

     3       T.P. ANANTHANARAYANAN
             AGED 59 YEARS
             S/O P. A. PARAMESWARAN IYYER, KAMALAVILAS, R. S.
             ROAD, THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

     4       T.P.RAMACHANDRAN
             AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O P. A. PARAMESWARAN IYYER, KAMALAVILAS, R. S.
             ROAD, THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 680001


             BY ADVS.
             SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
             R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005)
             CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012)



      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.03.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..16/2025, 229/2024, THE COURT ON
25.03.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        3
                                                   2025:KER:24734


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                        &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                          RCREV. NO. 16 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2024 IN RCA NO.220 OF

2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ARISING OUT

OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN RCP NO.46 OF 2015 OF II

ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       RAJU C.J.
             AGED 60 YEARS
             S/O. JOSEPH, CHALACKAL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA DESOM &
             PO, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN -
             680006

     2       JOYSON K.FRANCIS
             AGED 56 YEARS
             S/O.FRANCIS, KULANGARA HOUSE, EAST SOORYAGRAMAM
             DESOM, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, EAST FORT P.O, THRISSUR
             TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005


             BY ADVS.
             GIRIJA K GOPAL
             K.N.VIGY
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        4
                                                   2025:KER:24734

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

     1       SUBRAMANYAN IYYER
             AGED 86 YEARS
             S/O. P.A.IYYER@ P.A.ANANTHANARAYANA IYYER , OWNER
             OF KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR,
             PIN - 680001

     2       P.A.KRISHNAN IYYER,
             AGED 82 YEARS
             S/O. P.A.IYYER@ P.A.ANANTHANARAYANA IYYER , OWNER
             OF KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR,
             PIN - 680001

     3       T.P. ANANTHANARAYANAN
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O.P.A.PARAMESWARAN IYYER, KAMALAVILAS, THRISSUR
             TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

     4       T.P. RAMACHANDRAN
             AGED 46 YEARS
             S/O.P.A.PARAMESWARAN IYYER, KAMALAVILAS, THRISSUR
             TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001


             BY ADVS.
             SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
             R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005)
             CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012)



      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..252/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 25.03.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        5
                                                   2025:KER:24734


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                        &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                         RCREV. NO. 229 OF 2024

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2024 IN RCA NO.229 OF

2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR ARISING OUT

OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN RCP NO.47 OF 2015 OF I

ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT ,THRISSUR

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2.:

             E.V. JOMON,
             AGED 48 YEARS
             S/O ELUVATHINKAL VAREED, THRISSUR PHOTO FRAME
             CENTER, KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, XII/304,
             CHETTIYANGADI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001


             BY ADVS.
             T.K.VIPINDAS
             K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NO.1:

     1       P.A SUBRAMANYA IYYER
             S/O P.A IYYER @ P. ANANTHANARAYANA IYYER, OWNER OF
             KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT,
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        6
                                                   2025:KER:24734

             PIN - 680001

     2       P.A KRISHNA IYYER,
             S/O P.A IYYER @ P. ANANTHANARAYANA IYYER, OWNER OF
             KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, THRISSUR DESOM, VILLAGE,
             TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

     3       T.P ANANATHANARAYANAN,
             S/O P.A PARAMESWARA IYYER, KAMALAVILAS BUILDING,
             THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

     4       T.P RAMACHANDRAN,
             S/O P.A PARAMESWARA IYYER, KAMALAVILAS BUILDING,
             THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT-, PIN - 680001

     5       C.J PAUL
             S/O C.P JOHNY, THRISSUR PHOTO FRAME CENTER,
             KAMALAVILAS BUILDING, XII/304, CHETTIYANGADI,
             THRISSUR TALUK &DISTRICT-, PIN - 680001


             BY ADVS.
             SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
             R.RAJITHA(K/870/2005)
             CHITHRA S.BABU(K/376/2012)



      THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.03.2025, ALONG WITH RCRev..252/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 25.03.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024


                                        7
                                                          2025:KER:24734




                                   ORDER

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The tenants who suffered a common order of

eviction under Section 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Rent Control

Act', for short) challenge the concurrent findings of

the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of

this court.

2. The landlords filed six separate eviction

petitions before the Rent Control Court against the

tenants occupying different shop rooms in a building

owned by them, contending that they require the

vacant possession of all the six tenanted shop rooms

for stocking materials which are being used for their RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

perfumery business. The landlords contended that they

occupy a part of the building, but they need the

ground floor of the building itself for storing the

materials. Eviction was also sought against some of

the tenants (the respondents in R.C.P.No.48/2015 &

50/2015) under Section 11(4)(i) of the Rent Control

Act, on the ground of sub-letting.

3. The claim for eviction on the ground of bona

fide need for additional accommodation was resisted

by the tenants. According to them, landlords have no

bona fides in making the said claim as they have

enough vacant space in the very same building for

accommodating the projected need. It is also

contended by them that the hardship which may be

caused to the tenants by granting the eviction order

will outweigh the advantage of the landlords, as

there are no vacant rooms in that locality to shift

their business.

4. All the cases were tried together and disposed RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

of through a common order. During the trial, one of

the landlords was examined as PW1 to prove their

claim and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked in evidence. The

tenants examined RW1 to RW9 and got marked in

evidence Exts.B1 to B36. Apart from the said

evidence, Commissioners appointed in three cases were

also examined as CW1 to CW3 and Exts.C1 to C3 were

marked.

5. After elaborately referring to the oral and

documentary evidence and specifically adverting to

the contentions of the tenants, the Rent Control

Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority

concurrently found that the claim of the landlords is

genuine and they require the tenanted premises for

additional accommodation for their personal use. Both

the authorities further found that the comparative

hardship of the landlords would be higher if the

petitions for eviction were not allowed.

6. We heard the learned counsel for the RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

petitioners and the respondents.

7. It was attempted to guide us through the

evidence adduced before the trial court to convince

us that both the courts did not appreciate the

evidence in a proper way and thereby they arrived at

a wrong conclusion. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioners, the reports of the Commissioners

would reveal that the landlords have sufficient

vacant space in the very same building itself.

However, we have noted that both the authorities

elaborately considered such aspects and concluded

that the reports of the Commissioners would not show

that those rooms were vacant. The Appellate Authority

specifically observed that it was not possible to

arrive at such a conclusion from the Commission

Reports. It is also found that, for accepting the

suggestion of the tenants that there is sufficient

space in the said building, the landlords should

convert the open terrace in the building to a covered RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

room, which is unwarranted and impermissible.

8. After considering the contentions of both

sides, we find no reason to re-evaluate the

correctness of those findings of facts. In Ubaiba v.

Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the Honourable Apex

Court held that the power of revision under Section

20 of the Act should not be exercised to reappreciate

the evidence and to substitute an independent

conclusion in place of the findings arrived at by the

Rent Control Court/Appellate Authority. In the

absence of any material to show that there is

perversity or gross irregularity in the findings of

the Courts of the first and second instances, this

court is not expected to reconsider the correctness

of the concurrent factual findings as to the bona

fide need projected by the landlords. The petitioners

herein failed to point out any such exceptional

circumstances.

RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

9. Therefore, these Rent Control Revision

Petitions are dismissed. However, considering the

fervent plea made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, six months' time is granted to the

petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the

petition-scheduled shop rooms to the respondents,

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners 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 they will surrender

vacant possession of the petition-

scheduled shop rooms to the respondents-

landlords within six months from the

date of this order and that, they shall RCRev.No.252/2024, 16/2025 & 229/2024

2025:KER:24734

not induct third parties into possession

of the petition-scheduled shop rooms.

(ii) The petitioners 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 one month from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this