Indian National League Malappuram District Committee, Down Hill (PO), Malappuram v. Mannoopparambil George Joseph and Don George

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944** **R.C.REV. NO. 54 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2022 IN R.C.A.NO.48 OF 2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II), MANJERI AND THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN R.C.P.NO.8 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **INDIAN NATIONAL LEAGUE** **MALAPPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, DOWN HILL (PO), MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 519, REPRESENTED BY PRESENT GENERAL SECRETARY, O.K THANGAL, AGED 57, S/O. VALIYA UNNI THANGAL, RESIDING AT SADATH MANZIL, VALIYAPARAMBA P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 637.** **BY ADVS.** **K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON KAVERY S THAMPI ARUNKUMAR P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MANNOOPARAMBIL GEORGE JOSEPH,** **AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH JOHN, DOWN HILL (PO), MALAPPURAM AMSOM, KEEZMURI DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 519.** 2 ## R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 **2 DON GEORGE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MANNOOPARAMBIL GEORGE JOSEPH, DOWN HILL (PO0 MALAPPURAM AMSOM, KEEZMURI DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 519.** **BY ADV LAL.K.JOSEPH** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON 08.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 ## **O R D E R** Ajithkumar, J. Concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner-tenant should surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule room to the respondent-landlord under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is called in question in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Act. 2. The respondent filed R.C.P.No.8 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Manjeri, seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Act. Rent since December 2015 has been said to be in arrears. The respondents are conducting a business in plywood, door locks, glasses, hardware articles, etc. in the ground floor rooms in the building owned by them. The partnership firm to which the respondents and two others are partners, has been conducting the said business. The petitioner has been in occupation of two rooms in the upstairs portion of the building 4 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 as a tenant. The respondents require the said upstairs rooms, which are scheduled in the rent control petition, for the purpose of stocking articles for the business and for expansion of their business activities. Therefore, they sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation. Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent also has been sought. 3. The petitioner resisted the prayers for eviction by filing a counter statement. The petitioner has contended that only because they did not know about the purchase of the building by the respondents, rent could not be paid. Thereby the petitioner contended that there was no willful default in payment of rent. The petition schedule rooms are on the upstairs of the building. These rooms are not at all suitable to the business of the respondents. Business articles like plywood, furniture, glass, etc. cannot be taken to that space. Thus the petitioner maintains that the petition schedule rooms are not suitable for the purpose projected by the respondents. Recently, the respondents have constructed an additional 5 ## R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 room annexing the building and that satisfies the space requirement of the respondents. 4. The Rent Control Court examined the 1[st] respondent and Secretary of the petitioner-Union as PW1 and RW1 respectively. Exts.A1 to A13, C1 and C2 were received in evidence. After considering the evidence, the Rent Control Court has come to the conclusion that the respondents require additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding their business and on that ground they are entitled to get the petitioner evicted from the petition schedule rooms. The question of comparative hardship was also weighed and found that the hardship that may occur to the petitioner would not outweigh the benefit that would enure to the respondents. The order of eviction was thereby rendered by the Rent Control Court. That order was subjected to scrutiny by the Appellate Authority. Acquisition of additional area by way of putting up a structure attached to the ground floor rooms where the business of the respondents is expanded now was stressed before the Appellate Authority apart from the other 6 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 contentions based on the pleadings. The Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence in detail and reached the finding that the order of eviction was not liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on a mere perusal of Annexure A1 series photographs, which was produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2022 would reveal that the spacious area was newly built by the respondents, which is sufficient and adequate for their purpose. That apart, the convenience by using the said additional area, which is in the ground floor itself and adjoining the show room is more convenient, whereas the upstairs rooms to which access is available only through narrow stairs is not at all convenient. The products being sold in the shop of the respondents are plywood, furniture, glass, hardware materials, etc. It may be correct to say that articles of large size cannot be taken to the upper floor portion through the stairs. But plywood, furniture and glasses alone are not the goods being sold. PW1 deposed in court that all kinds of construction related articles are sold in his shop. His 7 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 son, the 2[nd] respondent, obtained an MBA degree and they have a plan to expand the business. The partnership firm conducting the business has four partners; the 1[st] respondent, his wife and two children, one among whom is the 2[nd] respondent. They want more space for exhibiting articles, business conferences and such other purposes. Insofar as the expanded area is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that on account of delay in getting vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, it has become necessary to find out space for storing articles. It was for that purpose they put up a temporary structure and the same cannot be a substitute for the additional accommodation they require. 6. The Commissioner vide Ext.C1 reported the nature of the aforesaid rooms. It has been reported that the newly constructed structure is built using tin-sheets. It in all respects is a temporary one. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that having constructed such a structure, requirement of the respondents is met, and 8 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 therefore, there is no justification for demanding eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule shop rooms. Considering the comparative advantage of this area also, it is urged that the plea for eviction is not justified. 7. Exts.A9 and 10 are the sale deeds as per which the respondents purchased the petition schedule building. The respondents have half right each in the building and the land appurtenant thereto. It is the definite version of PW1 that in order for expanding the firm business, the building was purchased. The space constraints are very much evident from the version of PW1. A report of the Commissioner as per Ext.C1 supports the said evidence. In the said circumstances, putting up of a temporary structure by the respondents in order to meet their urgent needs of the business cannot be a reason to deny the accommodation they genuinely needed in addition to the area already in their occupation. 8. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority after considering the evidence on record concurrently found that the requirement put forward by the 9 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 respondents is genuine and bona fide. In the light of the discussion we had on the basis of the evidence and the circumstances borne out from the materials on record, we hold that there is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the courts below. ## 9. In **Hassan Koya K. v. James George and others** **[2019 (4) KLJ 74]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, the landlord seeking eviction under Section 11(8) has not only to prove the bona fides of his claim for additional accommodation but also the comparable degree of hardship which he would suffer than the tenant in the case of refusal of eviction. It is mandatory that a definite finding on the issue of comparative hardship between the parties must be entered in a proceeding for eviction under Section 11(8) of the Act. If the Rent Control authorities find on evidence that hardship to which the tenant would be exposed in the case of eviction will be higher than that of the landlord in the case of refusal of eviction, prayer for eviction could only be declined. If, on the other hand, the evidence fortifies a finding that landlord would 10 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 occasion to suffer greater than the tenant in case of refusal of eviction, an order of eviction under Section 11(8) in such a case would certainly be justified. 10. The petitioner is the District Unit of a political party. Their office is functioning in the petition schedule rooms. RW1, who gave evidence on behalf of the petitioner, deposed that their meetings are used to be held in the petition schedule rooms and no other convenient building to shift the office is available in the locality. He, all the same, stated that if some other premises would be available, there is no difficulty for shifting the office. It is however not stated as to whether any enquiry to find out some alternative building or room to shift the office has been made by the petitioner. Being an office of a political party, its functioning does not have any connection with the livelihood of any person. There cannot be any particular parameters regarding the necessity to function such an office. It can function in any room or building; no matter, the building/room abuts a public road even. Whereas, for the expansion of the business being 11 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 conducted by the respondents in the ground floor of the building, the space adjoining it alone can be made use of. In that view of the matter, getting vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the respondents is a necessity. Even if the petitioner is not able to continue its office in the petition schedule rooms and has to shift it to some other place, there will not be any serious hardship. In the said circumstances, we hold that the provisions of subsection (10) of Section 11 of the Act cannot be applied to the advantage of the petitioner in this case. 11. In **Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499]** , the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have re-appreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, 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 12 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 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. 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. 12. In **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]** a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act 13 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 as a first or a second court of appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 13. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412]** after considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** , **Ubaiba** and **Dilbahar Singh (supra)** the Apex Court held that when the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not be said to be perverse in any way, the High Court could - not re appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 14. Viewed in the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, no further appreciation or assimilation of 14 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 evidence in order to decide the legality, regularity or propriety of the findings of the courts below is warranted. The result is that the respondents are entitled to get the order of eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule rooms under Section 11(8) of the Act confirmed. Hence this Revision Petition fails. We, accordingly, dismiss it. 15. At the time of pronouncement of this Order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request to afford one year time for vacating the premises pointing out the difficulty in finding out another room. The learned counsel for the respondents is agreeable to grant six months’ time. 16. Having considered all the aspects, we deem it appropriate to grant seven months’ time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule rooms, 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, 15 ## R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 expressing an unconditional undertaking that the petitioner will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule rooms to the petitioners-landlords within seven months from the date of this order and that, the petitioner shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule rooms and further the petitioner shall conduct any business in the petition schedule rooms 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 four 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 16 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule rooms 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/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 17 R.C.Rev.No.54 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF R.C.REV.NO.54 OF 2022** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING**