D. Sarathchandra Das v. Sheeba Rajesh and Sreeja Rajesh (minor)

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 4[TH] 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. RCRev. No.80 of 2024 3 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 RCRev. No.80 of 2024 4 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- RCRev. No.80 of 2024 5 tenant cannot be entertained. The appeal by the respondentslandlords 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 RCRev. No.80 of 2024 6 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 reappreciation 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 reappreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report RCRev. No.80 of 2024 7 (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 reappreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a different conclusion but not on a reappreciation 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 RCRev. No.80 of 2024 8 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 petitionertenant 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 RCRev. No.80 of 2024 9 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 petitionerslandlords 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 RCRev. No.80 of 2024 10 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 respondenttenant 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