Rent Control Revisions (Ernakulam) - K. V. Purushan v. George Kutty; P. A. Abdul Salam v. George Kutty; K. V. Abraham v. George Kutty; A. K. Mohanan v. George Kutty

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` R.C.REV.NO.272 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2023 IN R.C.A.NO.10 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II), ERNAKULAM, ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 IN R.C.P. NO.131 OF 2017 OF THE RENT CONTORL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF – III), ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN R.C.A.No.10OF 2020 AND RESPONDENT IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.131 OF 2017: ``` ``` K V PURUSHAN AGED 59 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. KOCHAPPU, KADUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.RAJENDRAN NAIR M.SANTHY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN R.C.A.No.10OF 2020 AND PETITIONER IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.131 OF 2017: ``` ``` GEORGE KUTTY AGED 58 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER), PUNNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THUPPAMPADY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADV MARTIN JOSE P ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH RCREV.273/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` R.C.REV.NO.273OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2023 IN R.C.A.NO.12 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II), ERNAKULAM, ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 IN R.C.P. NO.124 OF 2017 OF THE RENT CONTORL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF – III), ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN R.C.A.No.12 OF 2020 AND RESPONDENT IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.124 OF 2017: ``` ``` P A ABDUL SALAM AGED 58 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED, THALIYAPADATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P O, PIN – 686585 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.RAJENDRAN NAIR M.SANTHY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN R.C.A.No.12 OF 2020/PETITIONER IN R.C.P.No.124 ``` ``` OF 2017: ``` ``` GEORGE KUTTY AGED 58 YEARS (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER), PUNNAKUZHIYIL, THUPPAMPADY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADV MARTIN JOSE P ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH RCREV NOS.272/2023, 275/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` R.C.REV.NO.275OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2023 IN R.C.A.NO.11 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II), ERNAKULAM, ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 IN R.C.P. NO.122 OF 2017 OF THE RENT CONTORL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF – III), ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ``` REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN R.C.A.No.11 OF 2020 AND RESPONDENT IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.122 OF 2017: ``` ``` A K MOHANAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, ARIKATHIPARAMBIL, KANDANADU P.O., PIN - 682305 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.RAJENDRAN NAIR M.SANTHY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN R.C.A.No.11 OF 2020 AND PETITIONER IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.122 OF 2017: ``` ``` GEORGE KUTTY AGED 58 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER), PUNNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THUPPAMPADY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADV P.MARTIN JOSE ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH RCREV..273/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 29TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` R.C.REV.NO.276OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2023 IN R.C.A.NO.9 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II), ERNAKULAM, ARISING OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2019 IN R.C.P. NO.123 OF 2017 OF THE RENT CONTORL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF – III), ``` ## **`ERNAKULAM`** ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN R.C.A.No.9 OF 2020 AND RESPONDENT IN`** ``` R.C.P.No.123OF 2017: ``` ``` K.V. ABRAHAM AGED 65 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER), PUNNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THUPPAMPADY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.RAJENDRAN NAIR M.SANTHY ``` ``` RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN R.C.A.No.9OF 2020 AND PETITIONER IN ``` ``` R.C.P.No.123OF 2017: ``` ``` GEORGE KUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE REVISION PETITIONER), PUNNAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THUPPAMPADY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314 ``` ``` BY ADV MARTIN JOSE P ``` ``` THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2024, ALONG WITH RCREV.NO.273/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** These Rent Control Revisions are filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, against a common judgment dated 07.09.2023 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge – V), Ernakulam in R.C.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2020 and the order dated 23.09.2019 of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff – III), Ernakulam in R.C.P.Nos.122 to 124 of 2017 and 131 of 2017. The petitioner in the respective Rent Control Revisions is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.Nos.122, 123, 124 and 131 of 2017, filed by the respondent herein-landlord, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop rooms. The need projected in the Rent Control Petitions for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the landlord to construct a multi-storied building for starting a supermarket for sale of household articles and other goods on different floors, after demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms, which are stated to be in a dilapidated condition. In the Rent Control Petitions, the tenant filed counter opposing the order of eviction sought for. The Rent Control Petitions were tried 6 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases together. On the side of the landlord, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked. On the side of the tenants, DWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2 series were marked. The report, sketch and photographs of the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1, C2 and C3 series. The documents produced by the Secretary of the Mulanthuruthy Grama Panchayat were marked as Ext.X1. After the considering the pleadings and evidence and record, the Rent Control Court granted and order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act and the tenants were directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, within the time limit specified in the order dated 23.09.2019. In the order, it was made clear that, if the tenants remit or deposit the arrears of rent with interest and notice charge, within the time limit stipulated in that order, the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act will stand vacated under Section 11(2)(c). 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of eviction granted under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2020, which ended in dismissal by a common judgment dated 07.09.2023, whereby the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court stands affirmed. Challenging 7 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions is before this Court in these Rent Control Revisions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions and the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions confine the challenge made against the impugned order/judgment of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, against the findings regarding the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 5. On the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that the landlord is having 12 cents of land with a residential building, about 500 meters away from the petition schedule shop rooms. That land is suitable for constructing a multi-storied commercial building, in case the landlord genuinely requires a multi-storied building for conducting a supermarket. The petition schedule shop rooms are situated in another land having an extent of 15 cents. The learned 8 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases counsel would submit further that, if the landlord is very particular that the construction of a new multi-storied building should be in the 15 cents of land in which the petition schedule shop rooms situate, he can have such a construction, even without demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms, by utilising the remaining land. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, after arriving at a finding 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. The reasoning of the authorities below in the impugned order/judgment is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warranting an interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel would point out that the property in which the petition schedule shop rooms situate is having frontage to Nadakavu-Piravam Road and also Railway Station Road, as evident 9 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases from Ext.A5 approved building plan. 7. 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 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. 8. 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 10 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. 9. 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 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 11 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. 10. 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 the 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 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 12 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. 11. 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 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 13 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. 12. In **Dineshan Pillai P.B. v. Joseph @ Jose [2019 (3) KHC 206]** a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which one of the contentions of the tenant was that the landlord has several other vacant buildings of his own in his possession to start the proposed business. The Division Bench noticed that, the pleadings are very vague with respect to the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is stated that the landlord has several other buildings. No particular vacant room has been identified or pointed out in the pleadings. The Division Bench opined that it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to plead and prove the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord. In the absence of specific pleadings, disclosing the identity of the vacant building in the possession of the landlord, it can be said that the tenant has not discharged the initial burden of proof under the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. 13. In the instant case, the need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 14 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 11(3) of the Act is that of the landlord to construct a multistoried building for starting a supermarket for the sale of household articles and other goods on different floors, after demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms. As evident from Ext.A5 approved building plan, the land in which the petition schedule shop rooms situates is having frontage to Nadakavu-Piravum Road and also Railway Station Road. The landlord wants to construct a multistoried commercial complex in that property, after demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms for starting a supermarket. It is also evident from Ext.A5 approved building plan that the construction of the proposed multi-storied commercial building requires demolition of the petition schedule shop rooms, since the new building will occupy the entire extent of land. The availability of another land with a residential building, under the ownership of the landlord, which is at a distance of 500 meters away from the petition schedule shop rooms, will not attract the provisions under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is for the landlord to decide the property in which he has to construct a multi-storied building. The tenant cannot contend that instead of demolishing the petition schedule shop rooms, the landlord has to demolish the residential building in the land situated 500 meters away from 15 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases the land in which the petition schedule shop rooms situate, for the purpose of constructing a multi-storied building. For constructing such a building, the landlord has obtained Ext.A5 approved plan and Ext.A6 building permit. 14. The availability of another land owned by the landlord in the very same locality, in which there is a residential building, will not enable the tenant to raise a contention that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has application in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority rightly found that the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, it cannot be contended that the reasoning of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the above aspect is either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference by this Court in this Rent Control Revision. 15. 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 16 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. ## 16. 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 17 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. ## 17. 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 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. 18. In **Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645]** the Apex Court considered the exercise of revisional power by the High 18 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 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. 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 19 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases ## exist. ## 19. 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 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. ## 20. 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 20 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases - 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. 21. In **Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013 (4) KLT 592]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, even though in the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it has been held that, in revisional jurisdiction there cannot be a re-appreciation of evidence in order to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts, it has been held in those decisions itself that, if the view taken is perverse and the statutory scheme has not been kept in mind and if it requires correction, then Court can reappreciate the evidence. When the argument is that, the approach made by the authorities are perverse, it cannot be said that this Court cannot look into the pleadings and scan through the evidence to find out whether the conclusions have been arrived at properly on the pleadings and evidence. ## 22. In **Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2)** **KLJ 164]** , a Division Bench of this Court held that, the High Court (in revision) is obliged to test the order of the Rent Control Court on the touch stone of whether it is according to law. For that 21 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases limited purpose, it may enter into reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Control Court is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. 23. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the reasoning of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the applicability of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It cannot also be said that, while ordering the eviction of the tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Rent Control Appellate Authority has committed a manifest error, warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that the tenants may be granted time up to 31.03.2024 to give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms. 22 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases 25. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that other than the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023, none others are in occupation of the respective shop rooms. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that the tenants are prepared to clear the entire 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 shop rooms to the landlord. 27. In such circumstances, these Rent Control Revisions are dismissed declining interference on the impugned order/judgment of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority; however, by granting time up to 29.02.2024 to the petitioners-tenants, to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the respondent-landlord, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The respondent-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions 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 23 R.C.Rev.No.272 of 2023 and conne. cases undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the petitionerlandlord on or before 29.02.2024 and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop room and further they shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop rooms only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities; (ii) The respondent-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions 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 respondent-tenant in the respective Rent Control Petitions 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 shop rooms will stand cancelled automatically and the petitionerlandlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN