Mavilli Purathoot M.P Babu and others v. Safiya and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` R.C.REV.NO.144 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2023 IN RCA NO.4 OF 2021 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE-V), KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2019 IN RCP NO.8 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), QUILANDY. ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER AND ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 AND 3/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:-`** - **`1 MAVILLI PURATHOOTT M.P BABU (DIED), AGED 62 YEARS`** - **`S/O. BALARAMAN, MELUR AMSOM DESOM, MELOOR POST, KOYILANDY, PIN - 673306`** - **`*2 M. ANITHA, W/O. LATE BABU, MELUR AMSOM AND DESOM, MELOOR POST, KOYILANDY`** - **`*3 SUNISHA, D/O. LATE BABU, MELUR AMSOM AND DESOM, MELOOR POST, KOYILANDY.`** - **`*(ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1[ST] PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 21.09.2023 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2023.)`** ``` BY ADVS.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER ``` - **`T.K.SREEKALA KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 AND ADDL. 7[TH] RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS:-`** - **`1 SAFIYA, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, THODUVAYAL HOUSE, IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523`** - **`2 SIRAJ, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, THODUVAYAL HOUSE,`** R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 2 ``` IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523 ``` - **`3 SUBAIR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, THODUVAYAL HOUSE, IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523`** - **`4 SAMIYA, AGED 30 YEARS W/O. NAJEEB, PARAKKOOR HOUSE, KEEZHARIYUR, KOYILANDY, PIN - 673307`** - **`5 SALAM HAMEED, AGED 27 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, THODUVAYAL HOUSE, IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523`** - **`6 FATHIMA HAMEED, S/O. LATE ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, THODUVAYAL HOUSE, IRINGATH POST, PAYYOLI ANGADI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523`** - **`*7 VIPIN, S/O. LATE BABU, MELUR AMSOM AND DESOM, MELOOR POST, KOYILANDY- 673 306 *(ADDITIONAL 7[TH] RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2023 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2023.)`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED ``` ``` P.P.HASHICK(K/2604/1999) ``` - **`AKHIL PHILIP MANITHOTTIYIL(K/001377/2020) NAEEM M.M.(K/003469/2022) MUHAMMED FIRDOUZ A.V.(K/2783/2023) ANAND GEO`** ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 10.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 3 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This Rent Control Revision arises out of the judgment dated 04.04.2023 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-V), Kozhikode in RCA No.4 of 2021, arising out of the order of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Quilandy, in RCP No.8 of 2016, which was one filed by respondents 1 to 6 herein, who are the legal representatives of the original landlord, against the respondent therein-original tenant, invoking the provisions under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule room, in which he was conducting a hotel, on the ground of the bona fide need of the 5[th] respondent herein, the son of the original landlord, who requires the said room to start an interior designing firm, and on the ground that the installation of a wastewater tank by the original tenant has diminished the value or utility of the room materially and permanently. 2. On receipt of notice in RCP No.8 of 2016, the original tenant entered appearance and filed a counter statement, opposing the reliefs sought for. Before the Rent Control Court, the 5[th] respondent herein was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the landlords. On the side of the R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 4 original tenant, he was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide, which is not a mere desire for the purpose of evicting the original tenant, as alleged by him. Since the landlords are in possession of another room behind the petition schedule room, the original tenant is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the original tenant to prove that he is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule room and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for him to carry on such business, the Rent Control Court held that the original tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. In the absence of any expert evidence to prove that the installation of the wastewater tank by the original tenant has diminished the value or utility of the petition schedule room materially, the Rent Control Court held that the landlords are not entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act. In the result, the Rent R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 5 Control Court, by the order dated 14.02.2019, dismissed RCP No.8 of 2016. 3. Challenging the order dated 14.02.2019 of the Rent Control Court in RCP No.8 of 2016, to the extent the original tenant was found entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, thereby declining an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, and also the finding that the landlords are not entitled to evict the original tenant under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act, the landlords filed RCA No.4 of 2021 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. 4. By the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2023, the Appellate Authority set aside the finding of the Rent Control Court on the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, since the landlords have established special reasons since it has come out in evidence that the room behind the petition schedule room is not suitable for the bona fide need of PW1 (5[th] respondent herein) to start an interior designing firm. Moreover, the said room is not in the exclusive ownership of PW1, for whose benefit the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is sought for, which is in the co-ownership of all the landlords, who are the legal R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 6 representatives of the original landlord. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court that the need projected in RCP No.8 of 2016 is bona fide and that the original tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The finding of the Rent Control Court that landlords are not entitled to evict the original tenant under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In the result, the Appellate Authority allowed RCA No.4 of 2021 in part, by the judgement dated 04.04.2023, granting an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, and the original tenant was directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule room to the landlords, within one month from the date of that judgment. 5. Challenging the judgment dated 04.04.2023 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.4 of 2021, the original tenant filed this Rent Control Revision before this Court, under Section 20 of the Act. During the pendency of this Rent Control Revision, the original tenant died and his legal representatives, namely, wife and children, are impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 3 and as additional 7[th] respondent. 6. On 21.09.2023, when this Rent Control Revision came R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 7 up for admission, respondents 1 to 6/landlords entered appearance through counsel. This Court noticed that one among the legal representatives of the original tenant, who is abroad, is impleaded as the additional 7[th] respondent. The final disposal of this Rent Control Revision can only be with notice to the additional 7[th] respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners undertook to take steps to see that the additional 7[th] respondent, who is presently abroad, enters appearance through counsel by filing vakalat. In I.A. No.1 of 2023, this Court passed an interim order on 21.09.2023, which reads thus; “The finding on the question as to the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition is concurrent. However, the finding on the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is divergent. In such circumstances, considering the fact that the original tenant is no more and the restaurant is being run by supplemental 2[nd] petitioner, who is his widow, we deem it appropriate to grant an interim order staying all further proceedings in E.P.No.141 of 2023 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy arising out of the order of eviction granted by Rent Control Appellate Authority, Koyilandy in R.C.A.No.4 of 2021, arising out of R.C.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Koyilandy, for a period of one month.” 7. On 18.10.2023, when this Rent Control Revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for additional petitioners R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 8 2 and 3 submitted that the additional 7[th] respondent would enter appearance through another counsel within ten days. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6/landlords pointed out that there are arrears of rent in respect of the petition schedule room. The learned counsel for additional petitioners 2 and 3 sought time to get instructions. By the order dated 18.10.2023, the interim order granted in I.A.No.1 of 2023 was extended for a period of four weeks. 8. Heard the learned counsel for additional petitioners 2 and 3, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/landlords and also the learned counsel for the additional 7[th] respondent. 9. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act is warranted in the judgment dated 04.04.2023 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.4 of 2021, granting an order of eviction to respondents 1 to 6, under Section 11(3) of the Act. 10. Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 9 building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. 11. In **Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476]** the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in **Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand** **Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222]** a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 10 the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. As reiterated in **Deena Nath v.** **Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705]** bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in _praesenti_ and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. ## 12. In **Ammu v. Nafeesa [2015 (5) KHC 718]** a Division Bench of this Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that the need put forward by the landlord has to be examined on the presumption that the same is a genuine one, in the absence of any materials to the contra. ## 13. In **Gireeshbabu T. P. v. Jameela and others [2021** **(5) KHC SN 30]** , a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a party, held that, in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 11 landlord in contradistinction with a mere pretext on the part of the landlord for evicting the tenant, claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. Once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act but, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3). 14. In **Sait Nagee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal [(2005) 8 SCC 252]** the Apex Court held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business. 15. In the instant case, the bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the 5[th] respondent herein, the son of the original landlord, for starting an interior designing firm in the petition schedule room. The document marked as Ext.A4 is the Diploma Certificate in Interior Design obtained by the said R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 12 respondent from Karnataka State Open University and Ext.A7 is the mark list. The bona fide need projected in the Rent Control Petition stands proved by the oral testimony of the 5[th] respondent herein, who was examined as PW1, and also the documents marked in evidence. Nothing could be brought out during the cross-examination of PW1 to discredit the case of the said respondent that he bona fide requires the petition schedule room for starting an interior designing firm. The contention of the original tenant that the petition schedule room is not suitable for starting an interior designing firm was also found untenable, after considering the oral testimony of PW1 that the said room has a working area, waiting room, pantry area and toilet. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his needs or requirements and the manner in which he should conduct his affairs. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms as to which premises will be suitable or not for the proposed business of the landlord, or to advice the landlord what he should do and what he should not do. Neither the tenant nor the court can thrust upon its opinion or wisdom on the landlord and dictate terms in this regard. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority that the need projected in the Rent Control R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 13 Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide, is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in this Rent Control Revision. 16. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case, it will be just and proper to do so. 17. In **M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal [(2001) 2 SCC 355]** the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement was sought for under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the said decision, the Apex Court relied on the law laid down in **Ram Narain Arora** **v. Asha Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141]** , wherein it was held that the question whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a question which is intermixed with the question regarding bona fide requirement. Whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a defence for the tenant. Whether the other accommodation is more suitable than the suit premises would not R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 14 solely depend upon pleadings and non-disclosure by the landlord. The landlord having another accommodation would not be fatal to the eviction proceedings if both the parties understood the case and placed materials before the court and case of neither party was prejudiced. On the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court found that, even though the landlord has not mentioned about the other two premises, the material in respect of the other two premises was placed before the Rent Controller as well as before the High Court, thus no prejudice has been caused, and the parties have squarely dealt with this question. 18. In **Vasantha Mallan v. N.S. Aboobacker Siddique [2020 (1) KHC 21]** the question that arose before a Division Bench of this Court was whether a landlord is bound to plead under first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the availability of vacant building in his possession and seek to explain special reason for non-occupation of such premises, in a proceeding initiated for eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Division Bench held that the initial burden to prove that landlord is in possession of vacant building, if any, is only upon the tenant unless the landlord himself admits any such vacant building to be in his possession. Only when the primary burden of proof in this R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 15 behalf is discharged by the tenant, the burden shifts to the landlord to show otherwise or that the vacant premises are not suited to his needs. He can successfully discharge his part of the burden by adducing evidence either through his own testimony or others or in any other legal manner. Law does not require the landlord to plead that he is in possession of any vacant building and has special reasons for its non-occupation. It is up to the tenant alone to take up the contention and prove that landlord is in vacant possession of premises. 19. In **Vasantha Mallan** , relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.L. Prabhakar [(2001) 2 SCC 355]** the Division Bench held that, it is not incumbent on the landlord to disclose in his pleading availability of vacant building in his possession. The non-disclosure of vacant premises cannot be picked up as a reason or circumstance to doubt the bona fides of the claim of the landlord put forward under Section 11(3) of the Act. The Division Bench made it clear that it is not obligatory for the landlord to disclose in his pleadings the details of the vacant buildings available in his possession. Nor does first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act insist the landlord to plead that the buildings available in his possession are not sufficient to meet his R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 16 requirements. These are matters of evidence rather than pleadings. Failure of the landlord to disclose availability of buildings in his possession and plead special reasons for not occupying them, cannot be taken as a valid and legal ground for rejecting the claim of the landlord as not bona fide. What could at the most be said is that it might be a fair and reasonable conduct if the landlord disclosed in his pleadings the details of buildings in his possession and simultaneously explained the reason for nonoccupation of the premises for his alleged needs. 20. In the instant case, the 5[th] respondent herein, who was examined as PW1 deposed that the room on the first floor of the building, which is smaller in size, is not suitable for starting an interior designing firm. PW1 has also deposed that the staircase to that room is not secure. After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that for not occupying the room on the first floor of the building, the landlord had stated a special reason. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said finding of the Rent Control Court. In respect of another room on the back side of the petition schedule room, the Rent Control Court found the special reason stated by PW1 as false, since PW1 during crossexamination had admitted that there is a pathway with a gate from R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 17 the National Highway to that room on the back side. The Appellate Authority, after analysing the evidence of PW1, found that the petition schedule room, which is facing the National Highway, has a working area, waiting room, pantry area and toilet. The oral testimony of PW1 is to the effect that the room on the back side is not suitable for starting an interior designing firm. Though, PW1 admitted during cross-examination, that there is a pathway with gate to that room from the National Highway, he never admitted that the room on the back side is facing the National Highway. From the evidence of the original tenant, who was examined as RW1, it cannot be found that the room on the back side of the petition schedule room has all the facilities of the petition schedule room and is suitable for starting an interior designing firm. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the Rent Control Court on the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The said finding of the Appellate Authority is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in this Rent Control Revision. 21. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 18 livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business. ## 22. In **Ammeer Hamsa v. Ramabhadran and another** **[2019 (2) KHC 465]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is trite law that both limbs under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are conjunctive and the burden of proof is on the tenant. Thus, the legal position has been settled by a long line of decisions and the courts below have rightly placed reliance upon those decisions. Vide: **Narayanan Nair v. Pachumma [1980 KLT 430]** , **Prasannan v. Haris [2005 (2) KLT 365]** , **Vineethan v. Fathima and others [2016 (1) KHC 631]** . In view of the legal position well settled by the aforesaid decisions, the landlord is not required to plead or prove other sources of income of the tenant. That apart, income is a fact which remains exclusively in the knowledge of each person only and another person cannot adduce evidence to prove income. Merely on the reason that the landlord has stated that the tenant has other sources of income and he is not mainly depending upon the income from the business carried R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 19 on in the tenanted premises, for his livelihood and he failed to prove so, the tenant cannot escape from the burden of proof cast on him under the first limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Where the statutory provision itself explicitly imposes the burden of proof on a party to the lis, there cannot be any variation whatever be the pleadings of the other party in that respect. The second proviso to Section 11(3) is an exception to the principal provision, granting protection to the tenant. When the second proviso itself imposes the burden of proof on the tenant, the question whether the landlord has pleaded or proved the facts constituting the said proviso is insignificant and irrelevant. Even if the landlord pleaded so, the burden of proof will not be shifted to him. Since the second proviso to Section 11(3) is an exception to the principal provision, which would dis-entitle the landlord to get the order of eviction under Section 11(3), the burden of proof, under the said proviso is always on the tenant and unless the burden of proof under the second proviso is discharged satisfactorily, the tenant is not entitled to get protection under the said proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 23. In the instant case, before the Rent Control Court, the original tenant failed to adduce any reliable evidence to prove that R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 20 he was depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule room and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for him to carry on that business. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in this Rent Control Revision. 24. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under subsection (1) shall be in its discretion. R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 21 25. 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 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 reappreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. 26. In **T. Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari [(1999)** **7 SCC 275]** the Apex Court held that the words ‘to satisfy itself’ employed in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 22 Rent Control) Act, 1960 no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding recorded by the courts below. 27. In **Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645]** the Apex Court considered the exercise of revisional power by the High Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in the context of an issue as to whether the relationship of landlord-tenant existed or not. It was urged that whether such relationship existed would be a jurisdictional fact. Relying on the decision in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** it was contended that, however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional court under Section 20 of the Act may be, it cannot have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority. R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 23 The Apex Court held that, though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code. Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the expression ‘propriety’ in Section 20 of the Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, in the light of the aforesaid ratio, the Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist. ## 28. 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 as a first or a second court of appeal. The R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 24 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. 29. In **Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR 2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412]** considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** , **Ubaiba** and **Dilbahar Singh** the Apex Court held that the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The - High Court could not have re appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 30. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the conclusion is irresistible that the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority while ordering eviction of the original tenant is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 25 this Court under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. 31. The learned counsel for additional petitioners 2 and 3 would submit that considering the fact that the original tenant died during the pendency of this Rent Control Revision and now the hotel is being run by his widow, the additional 2[nd] petitioner, with the support of her daughter, the tenants may be given at least six months' time to give vacant possession of the petition schedule room. 32. On the above request made by the learned counsel for the tenants, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6/ landlords would submit that the tenants have already got sufficient time, during the pendency of this Rent Control Revision, for vacating the petition schedule room. In case further time is granted to the tenants for giving vacant possession of the petition schedule room, they may be directed to clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default. 33. The learned counsel for additional petitioners 2 and 3 would submit that the tenants are prepared to clear the entire R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 26 dues towards arrears of rent, within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court and they shall continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default, till they give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords. 34. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision Petition is disposed of declining interference on the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority; however, by granting six months' time from the date of this order to additional petitioners 2 and 3/tenants, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to respondents 1 to 6/landlords, subject to the following conditions: - (i) Additional petitioners 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the original 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 they will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule room to the landlords within six months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule room and further they shall conduct any business in the petition schedule room only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities; R.C.Rev.No.144 of 2023 27 - (ii) They shall deposit the entire arrears of rent of Rs.1,92,000/- as on date before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one week from the date 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 legal representatives of the original tenants failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule room will stand cancelled automatically and the landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** **yd**