R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021 (Rent Control Revisions)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 119 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 17/2017 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III),MANJERI** **AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 34/2014 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAFEEKA, AGED 41 YEARS D/O. NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY, W/O ABDUL RASAQUE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **2 MOOSA, AGED 51 YEARS S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** - **3 BASMA, AGED 42 YEARS D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAHAMMED,** **CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O ALLAPRA ABU ALIAS ABOOBACKER, ERNAD TALUK, CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM)** - **4 ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 51 YEARS S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A.** 2 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** **K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K.** **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **MUHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KALATHINGAL MUHAMMEDALI, CHEMBAKUTH, EDAVANNA (P O) EDAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 541.** **BY ADVS.NIRMAL.S VEENA HARI** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev.120/2021 & 121/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 RCREV. NO. 120 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 19/2017 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III),MANJERI** **AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 36/2014 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI** **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAFEEKA, AGED 41 YEARS D/O NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY, W/O ABDUL RASAQUE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328.** - **2 MOOSA, AGED 51 YEARS S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328..** - **3 BASMA, AGED 42 YEARS D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAMMED, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328. (PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O ALLAPRA ABU ALIAS ABOOBACKER, ERNAD TALUK, CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM).** - **4 ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 51 YEARS S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679328.** 4 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** **BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 56 YEARS S/O THAZHEPARAMBAN MOOSSA HAJI, VATTAKKAVIL HOUSE, KAVANOOR AMSOM DESOM, KAVANOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673639.** - **2 ABDULLA, AGED 62 YEARS S/O MACHERI VEETTIL AHAMMED, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM, KAVANOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673639.** - **3 MUHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS S/O ULLATTIL ABDULLA, KARUVAMBRAM P.O, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676123.** - **4 ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O ATHIMANNIL ALAVI HAJI,** - **KARUVAMBRAM P.O, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676123.** - **5 K.AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 77 YEARS S/O THENU, KANNIYATH VEETTIL P.O, THRIKKALANGODE, THRIKKALANGODE AMSOM, KOORAMKULAM DESOM, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676121.** **BY ADV K.RAKESH** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL** **HEARING ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..119/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** **RCREV. NO. 121 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 3/3/2021 IN RCA 18/2017 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III),MANJERI** **AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DTD 25/2/2017 IN RCP 35/2014 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI** **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 RAFEEKA AGED 41 YEARS** **D/O NANNAMBARA ABDULLAKUTTY, W/O ABDUL RASAQUE, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** - **2 MOOSA, AGED 51 YEARS** **S/O THORAPPA VEERANKUTTY, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** - **3 BASMA, AGED 42 YEARS** **D/O KOZHUVUMMAL KUNHAHAMMED, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **(PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFFAR ALI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O ALLAPRA ABOO ALIAS ABOOBACKER, CHEMBRASSERI AMSOM DESOM ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 633)** **4 ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 51 YEARS** **S/O CHANGARAMVEETTIL ABOOBACKER HAJI,** 6 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** **CHATHANGOTTUPURAM AMSOM DESOM, CHATHANGOTTUPURAM (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.** **BY ADVS.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) VINOD RAVINDRANATH MEENA.A. K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ASHWIN SATHYANATH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MOYIKKAL MUHAMMEDALI AGED 59 YEARS S/O UNNIASSAN, KURUMBALANGODE VILLAGE, POOLAPPADAM PATHAR (P O) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 334.** **2 K. SUDHA, AGED 61 YEARS W/O KANISSEERI PUTHANVEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN, ERNAD TALUK, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM, MELAKKAM DESOM , KARUVAMBRAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN CODE 676 123.** - **3 K.R.SAJI, AGED 42 YEARS S/O KANISSEERI PUTHANVEETTIL RAMACHANDRAN, ERNAD TALUK, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM, MELAKKAM DESOM, KARUVAMBRAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-676 123.** - **4 SHAHANAS, AGED 46 YEARS** **S/O CHATHOLI VEETTIL ALAVI, ERNAD TALUK, KARAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, THRIKKALANGODE (P O) MALAPPURAM PIN-676 121.** ## **BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 9.12.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..119/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **-------------------------------------------------R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of December, 2022** ## **O R D E R** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** These rent control revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) have been filed against the judgments dated 03/03/2021 in R.C.A.No.17, 18 and 19 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Manjeri, which appeals have been filed against the common order dated 25/02/2017 in R.C.P.No.34, 35 and 36 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Manjeri. The revision petitioners herein are the appellants and the petitioners-landlords in the R.C.Ps. The respondents herein are the respondents in the appeal and the respondents-tenants in the R.C.Ps. The parties and documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.Ps. 2. R.C.P.No.34/2014, 35/2014 and 36/2014 were filed by the petitioners four in number, seeking eviction of the respondents under Section 11(3) of the Act. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner, the husband of the third petitioner. According to 8 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** the petitioners, they are the owners of the building housing the petition schedule rooms. The schedule rooms are situated in the ground floor of the larger building owned by the petitioners. In R.C.P.No.34/2014, there is only one respondent-tenant. In R.C.P.No.35/2014, the petition schedule consists of three rooms, i.e., item no.1 is stated to have been let out to the first respondent; item no.2 to respondents 2 and 3 and item no.3 to the fourth respondent. In R.C.P.No.36/2014, the petition schedule consists of five rooms, that is, item no.1 has been let out to the first respondent; item no.2 to the second respondent; item no.3 to the third respondent; item no.4 to the fourth respondent and item no.5 to the fifth respondent. According to the petitioners, the building was purchased on 23/05/2013 with the intention of starting a business in Chinese goods, i.e., electrical items, electronic items, mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses etc. by importing them or by other means in the entire ground floor of the building. The walls dividing or partitioning the rooms can be removed and slight alterations/ modifications be made in the ground floor to suit the business intended to be started on a large scale. It is also alleged that petitioners 2 and 4 are employed abroad. They had enough of working abroad and therefore they intend to return home for good. They need to start the proposed business for generating income after they quit their jobs and return home and so they _bona fide_ 9 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** require the petition schedule rooms for their own occupation. 3. The respondents in all the R.C.Ps. except the first respondent in R.C.P.No.36/2014 who was set _ex parte,_ entered appearance and filed counter denying the need alleged. According to them it is a mere ruse for eviction. They also claimed the protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 4. The RCC, as per order in I.A.No.493/2015 allowed joint trial of the three R.C.Ps. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A29 were marked on the side of the petitioners. RWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exts.B1 to B21 were marked on the side of the respondents. The advocate commissioner was examined as CW1 and the reports and plans have been marked as Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a). On an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the RCC found the need to be not _bona fide_ and hence dismissed all the three R.C.Ps. The petitioners filed three appeals, namely, R.C.A.No.17/2017, 18/2017 and 19/2017 against the order of the RCC. The RCAA by three separate judgments, dismissed the appeals confirming the order of the RCC. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the RCC and RCAA, the petitioners-landlords have come up in revision. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the concurrent findings of the RCC or the RCAA suffer from any illegality, 10 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** irregularity or impropriety. 6. Heard Adv. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners and Adv.Veena Hari, the learned counsel for the respondent in R.C.R.No.119/2021, Adv.K.Rakesh, the learned counsel for the respondent in R.C.R.No.120/2021 and Adv.Dinesh Mathew J.Muricken, the learned counsel for the respondent in R.C.R.No.121/2021. 7. Section 20 of the Act allows the aggrieved party to challenge the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding of an Appellate Authority. The power of revision is limited to make a scrutiny of records to satisfy itself as to the three tests laid down in Section 20. It cannot convert itself into evidence collecting or fact-finding Court. The scope of interference by the revisional court is restricted to cases where the RCC or RCAA have relied on irrelevant consideration, ignored valuable items of evidence, or applied wrong principles of law. The revisional authority has to satisfy itself of the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceedings of appellate authority. Where there is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders of the RCC or the RCAA, there is no justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 8. Before we go into the arguments advanced on behalf of the 11 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** petitioners, we refer to an argument of mis-joinder of cause of action advanced on behalf of the respondents, which has been answered in favour of the latter by the RCAA. The respondents contend that R.C.P.No.35 and 36/2014 are not maintainable because there has been a misjoinder of causes of action. There are four different tenants in R.C.P.No.35/2014 and five different tenants in R.C.P.No.36/2014. Therefore, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in **Jamal v. Safia Beevi, 2005(2) KLT 359 (F.B.)** , the argument is that the said R.C.Ps. are not maintainable. 8.1. The Full Bench in **Jamal** ( _supra_ ) observed that when a landlord files a petition under Section 11(3) against various tenants occupying separate portions of the same structure, different consideration may follow and the defenses available to the tenant would also be different. One of the tenants may be able to defeat the claim of the landlord not only on the ground that there is no _bona fides_ in the need alleged but also on the ground that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). Another tenant may be in a position to establish the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3). Yet another tenant occupying a portion of the same structure may not be successful in claiming the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It has further been held that, even if the cause of action against various tenants is the same, the defense available to the 12 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** tenants against the landlord may be distinct and different. In such a case there is likely to be conflict of interest between the tenants _inter se_ and so a single petition for eviction against more than one tenant is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of parties. Further, it has also been held that mis-joinder of cause of action is regarded only as an irregularity and not a ground on which the petition could be dismissed unless the objection to the same has been taken at the appropriate time. Objection regarding mis-joinder has to be taken at the earliest opportunity in the event of which, the landlord would be able to file separate petitions. In a case where such an objection is not taken at the earliest opportunity, the Court will not or should not interfere unless there is a total failure of justice. It has also been held that the RCC can always consolidate the Rent Control Petitions if there are similar or identity on all the matters in issue in the petitions. 8.2. In the case on hand, objection regarding mis-joinder is not seen addressed by the RCC. However, the RCAA has dealt with the same in R.C.A.No.18/2017 and R.C.A.No.19/2017 and answered the same in favour of the respondents. The contention regarding mis-joinder of causes of action is seen taken by some of the respondents in their counter to R.C.P.No.35/2014 and 36/2014. However, this point does not seem to have 13 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** been pressed into service during the trial stage or during the course of arguments and hence the RCC has not answered the same. The argument regarding mis-joinder of causes of action as held in **Jamal** ( _Supra_ ) ought to have been taken up at the earliest possible opportunity. That does not seem to have been done in this case. Moreover, the respondents have also not been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to them or that there has been a total failure of justice. That being the position, the argument that the R.C.Ps. are not maintainable on the ground of mis-joinder of causes of action is only liable to be rejected. 9. As noticed earlier, in the R.C.Ps. the need alleged is that the petitioners want to start a business in Chinese goods like, electrical items, electronic items, mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses etc. on a large scale. The items are intended to be procured by importing them or by other means. (ഹരജ�പട�ക മറ� ന�ല�നത�യ എടപ� ഹരജ�ക�ര ത�ര� വ�ങ�യത തനന ത�ര വ�ങ�യ ആനക എടപ�ന� ത�ന� ന�ല (Ground floor) മഴവന�യ� ച#ര$� ച#ന�സ� ന�ര'�തമ�യ electrical item, electronic item, mobile accessories, flowers, Toys, dresses തടങ�യ വസകള ഒന�യ� ഇറ�മത� ന#യ� ചത� മറ� തര$�ചല� സ/നമ�യ� ഉ$മ വ�ശ/�സമ�യ� ഒര കചവട4 ന#ച5ണത�ചലക�ണ�). In the proof affidavit of the fourth petitioner who was examined as PW1, it is stated that the intention is to start 14 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** a business in Chinese goods and if that is not possible, a business in home appliances and hardware on a wholesale and retail basis. At the same time, it is also stated that as soon as the rooms are got vacated, all arrangements have been made for importing the Chinese goods (ഹരജ�പട�ക എടപ�നല ത�ന� ന�ലയ�ല (Ground floor) കട�യ�ന�നര ഒ��പ�ച� ആ സല$� ച#ന�സ� ന�ര'�തമ�യ electrical item, electronic item, mobile accessories, flowers, toys, dresses തടങ�യ സ�ധനങള ഒന�യ� ഇറ�മത� ന#യ� ചത� ആയത� സ�ധധമ�ക�$ പക4 Home appliance-ഉ4 Hardwares-ഉ4 ച#രന സ�ധനങളനട ഒര wholesale & retail . ബ�സ�നചA� തടചങണനമന�ണ� ത�രമ�ന�ച�ടളത� മറ�കള ഒ��ഞ� ക�ടനചത�നട ച#ന�സ� സ�ധനങള ഒന�ച� ഇറക�ക�ട�നള എല� സ4വ�ധ�നങള4 ആയ�ടണ� ). If all arrangements have already been made for the purchase of Chinese items, then why again vacillate? It is no doubt true that the pleadings in a proceeding under the Act require a liberal interpretation. However, it appears from the pleadings and evidence on record that the petitioners have not made up their mind as to what business they intend to start. As pointed out by the respondents, this is one aspect to doubt the _bona fides_ of the claim put forward. 9.1. Ext.A2 series are supposed to be the purchase agreements entered into with the Chinese manufacturers for the purchase of Chinese 15 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** goods. The said documents are mostly seen prepared in Chinese. According to PW1, the purchase agreement was signed in Saudi Arabia. He however deposed that he is unaware of the contents of Ext.A2 series. He also admitted that Ext.A2 series does not contain the signature of the manufacturer(s) with whom the agreements are alleged to have been entered into. Our attention was also drawn to Ext.A26 which is a request given by a Chinese Pharmaceutical company to the Consulate-General of People's Republic of China to grant a double entry visa to their customer, viz., Abdul Razak, that is, the 4th petitioner in the RC.Ps. This probalises the case put forward by the respondents that these documents actually relate to the import of goods by the pharmaceutical company in which PW1 is working, for being given as compliments to doctors, pharmacists etc. 10. Further, PW1 in the box claims that he was terminated from service as per Ext.A24 termination letter. This stand appears to have been taken in an attempt by the petitioners to establish the _bona fides_ of the need put forward and the necessity for starting the proposed business. However, the said attempt has backfired because PW1 admitted in his cross examination that even after a year of the issuance of Ext.A24 letter, he still continues to be in the employment of the Company, which Company is purported to have terminated him as per Ext.A24. It is no doubt true, as pointed out on behalf 16 **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** of the petitioners that it is absolutely unnecessary for the second or the fourth petitioner to resign their jobs, come back home, remain idle and patiently wait for years together to get vacant possession of the tenanted premises, in order to succeed under Section 11(3) of the Act. However, when they have taken up a specific case that PW1 has been terminated and has also produced evidence to substantiate the same, then it is their duty to stand by the case and establish the same, in which attempt they have failed. All these aspects prompted the RCC as well as the RCAA to doubt the _bona fides_ of the need put forward by the petitioners. 11. As held by the Constitution Bench in **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 3708** _,_ a finding of fact recorded by the RCC or the RCAA if perverse, or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, then it is open to correction, because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Act is entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. In the case on hand, we find no such infirmity committed either by the RCC or the RCAA and so no interference by this Court is called for. 17 ## **R.C.R.No.119, 120 and 121 of 2021** In the result, the rent control revisions are dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** ami/