Kochoth Manoj v. P. M. Sulaikha

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ``` RCREV. NO. 142 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2024 IN RCA NO.77 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2015 IN RCP NO.115 OF 2014 OF PRINCIPAL ``` ``` MUNSIFF’S COURT, KANNUR ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:`** ``` KOCHOTH MANOJ AGED 56 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN, BUILDING NO CO II/459, (OLD NO III/314A, VALLYANNUR AMSOM, VARAM DESOM, P O VARAM, KANNUR, PIN – 670594. ``` ``` BY ADV K.P.HAREENDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` P. M. SULAIKHA AGED 58 YEARS, D/O ABOOBACKER, NASEEBA MANZIL, CHATHURAKINAR, P O VARAM, VALIYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR, PIN – 670594. ``` ``` BY ADV P M SULAIKHA(Party-In-Person) ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 ## **ORDER** ## **Harisankar V. Menon, J.** The revision petitioner, who is the tenant of building bearing No.C.P.II/459 of Chelora Grama Panchayath owned by the respondent herein, has filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act), challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2024 in R.C.A.No.77 of 2015 of the Additional District Court-II, Thalassery, by which the order dated 10.06.2015 in R.C.P.No.115 of 2014 of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kannur is confirmed. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as under: The revision petitioner was the tenant in a building owned by the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed an eviction petition before the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur, under Section 11(3) of the Act. In the said petition, it was pointed out that the respondent’s daughter and her husband require the premises in order to start a garment business. Though the petitioner herein contested the eviction petition, the Principal Munsiff’s Court, by an order dated 10.06.2015, brushed aside the objections raised by 3 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 the petitioner-tenant. The Principal Munsiff relied on the evidence rendered by the respondent’s daughter and found that the _bona fide_ need highlighted in the eviction petition can be accepted. As regards the contention of the tenant regarding the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Munsiff’s Court found that no evidence is adduced by the tenant as regards the income from the business. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner-tenant as regards the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) was not accepted. 3. Though an appeal was preferred, the Additional District Judge-II, Thalassery, by judgment dated 12.04.2024 in RCA 77 of 2015, found that the trial court considered the entire evidence and rightly found the point as to _bona fide_ need. The contention of the petitioner-tenant with respect to the second proviso to Section 11(3) was also not accepted. 4. It is aggrieved by the above orders that the captioned revision petition is presented. 5. It is under the provision 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 4 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 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; 5 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 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.” 6. 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 v. Omana Amma N. [AIR 2019 SC 3803]** . 7. Having considered the submissions made as well as the orders of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the findings rendered by the said authorities cannot be found fault in any manner. The eviction was sought against the petitioner-tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The _bona fide_ need highlighted was with reference to the need of the respondent’s daughter and husband to start a garment business. This need has been found acceptable by the Rent Control Court. The main objection raised by the tenant was with reference to the 6 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 provisions under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. This was found to be unsubstantiated. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered elaborately the submissions made before it with respect to the alleged room. Similarly, the claim of the petitioner-tenant under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is also rejected by the Appellate Authority for want of proper evidence. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order issued by the Rent Control Court as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority with respect to the findings under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the present revision petition is only to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, in such circumstances, prayed that the petitioner-tenant may be granted six months’ time to vacate the scheduled shop room. 10. 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 7 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 scheduled shop room to the respondent-landlord 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 scheduled shop room to the petitioner-landlord within four months from the date of this order and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the scheduled shop room and further he shall conduct any business in the scheduled shop room 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 month, 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 building will stand cancelled automatically and 8 RCRev.No.142 of 2024 the petitioner-landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** Skk//17.07.2024