Tharippambil Mehaboob and others v. Cheruveettill Mustafa Ahammed

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022/22ND POUSHA, 1943 RCREV. NO. 13 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/09/2020 IN R.C.A.NO.153 OF 2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II) KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2019 IN R.C.P.NO.137 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-I),** ## **KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** - ***1 THARIPPARAMBIL MEHABOOB, AGED 73 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA KOYA, T.P.HOUSE, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 314.** ## ***(DIED)** - **2 T.P.SUBAIDA ABBAS, AGED 63 YEARS W/O. ABBAS, 3/78A, ASHYANA, NEDUNGADI GARDENS, CHAKKORTHAKULAM, NADAKKAVU WEST, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 011** - ***ADDL.P3 THAHIRA K.M.** - **W/O.MEHABOOB, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT 36/3371, T.P. HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673001** - ***ADDL.P4 AYISHA NOORIE** **D/O MEHABOOB, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT 36/3371, T.P.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673001** -2- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 **ADDL.P5 EUGINE T.P., S/O MEHABOOB, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT 36/3371, T.P.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673001** **(ADDL. PETITIONERS P3 TO P5 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED IST PETITIONER ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2021 I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN R.C.R.NO.13 OF 2021)** **BY ADVS.P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE B.ANUSREE MANU VYASAN PETER MEERA P.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **CHERUVEETTIL MUSTAFA AHAMMED, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMMED HAJI, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 314.** ## **BY ADV FIROZ K.M (CAVEATOR)** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev.No.19/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022/22ND POUSHA, 1943 RCREV. NO. 19 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/09/2020 IN R.C.A.NO.152 OF 2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT – II), KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2019 IN R.C.P.NO.139 OF 2010 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT – I), KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS:** - ***1 THARIPPARAMBIL MEHABOOB, AGED 73 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA KOYA, T.P. HOUSE, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 314.** ## **(DECEASED)** - **2 T.O. SUBAIDA ABAS, AGED 63 YEARS W/O. ABBAS, 3/78A, ASHYANA, NEDUNGADI GARDENS, CHAKKORTHAKULAM, NADAKKAV WEST, KACHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 011.** - ***ADDL.P3 THAHIRA K.M, W/O.MEHABOOB, AGED 71, RESIDING AT 36/3371, T.P.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 673 001** - ***ADDL.P4 AYISHA NOORIE, D/O MEHABOOB,AGED 33,RESIDING AT 36/3371, T.P.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001.** -4- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 ***ADDL.P5 EUGINE T.P** **S/O.MEHABOOB,AGED 28, RESIDING AT 36/3371,T.P.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001.** **ADDL.P3 TO P5 BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED P1 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/10/2021 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN R.C.R.NO.19 OF 2021** **BY ADVS.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SMT.MEERA P.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **CHERUVEETTIL MUSTHAFA AHAMMED S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, AGED 79, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 314.** **BY ADV FIROZ.K.M (CAVEATOR)** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, ALONG WITH RCRev..13/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -5- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 ## **O R D E R** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. These Rent Control Revisions are filed by the petitionerstenants in R.C.P.Nos.139 of 2010 and 137 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-I), Kozhikode, who are the appellants in R.C.A.Nos.152 and 153 of 2019 on the file of the II[nd] Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Kozhikode. 2. R.C.P.No.139 of 2010 is one filed by the respondent herein-landlord under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building on the ground that the tenants have kept the rent at the rate of Rs.45/- per month in arrears from March 2010 onwards. During the pendency of that Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed R.C.P.No.137 of 2013, invoking the provisions under Section 5 of the Act seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule building. 3. In R.C.P.No.139 of 2010, the tenants disputed landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Control Court passed an order dated 20.05.2015, under Section 11(1) of the Act, on that issue, which was under challenge before the Appellate -6- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 Authority in R.C.A.Nos.104 and 117 of 2015 filed by the tenants under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. Those appeals ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 04.06.2015. The tenants challenged those orders before this Court in R.C.Rev.Nos.282 and 283 of 2016 filed under Section 20 of the Act. The said issue was concluded by the order of this Court dated 06.12.2018, whereby those Rent Control Revisions were dismissed on a finding that there is no illegality or impropriety on the findings of the courts below that the denial of title by the tenants is not bona fide. 4. After the dismissal of R.C.Rev.Nos.282 and 283 of 2016, the Rent Control Court proceeded with R.C.P.Nos.139 of 2010 and 137 of 2013. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A37 were marked on the side of the landlord. On the side of the tenants, RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B6(b) were marked. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 and the report and rough sketch dated 12.02.2015 were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a) respectively. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenants made an attempt to re-open the issue regarding landlord-tenant relationship. That issue was not permitted to be raised by the Rent Control Court, in view of the order of this Court dated 06.12.2018 in -7- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 R.C.Rev.Nos.282 and 283 of 2016. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the tenant had kept the monthly rent of the petition schedule building in arrears from March 2010 onwards and therefore, in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010, the landlord was found entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.137 of 2013, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, especially Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) rough sketch of the Advocate Commissioner and also the oral testimony of Pws.2 and 3 and also that of the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as CW1, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule building, invoking its powers under Section 5 of the Act, at Rs.6,000/- from the date of petition, with 10% annual increase. 5. Challenging the order dated 08.07.2019 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.139 of 2010 and 137 of 2013, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.152 and 153 of 2019 before the II[nd] Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. By the judgment dated 29.09.2020, the Appellate Authority dismissed those appeals, thereby confirming the order dated 08.07.2019 of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under -8- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010 and fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule building in R.C.P.No.137 of 2013. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority and also the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenants are before this Court in these Rent Control Revisions, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act. 6. On 13.01.2021, when R.C.Rev.No.13 of 2021 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The respondents-landlords entered appearance through counsel. After considering the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners-tenants and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords, this Court passed an interim order, which reads thus; “Heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners. The question raised in the revision is regarding the authority of the respondent to seek eviction when according to the revision petitioners, he has only a fractional mortgagee's right over the building. This submission is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent saying that his title deed (Ext.A9) of the year 2010, has not been challenged before the authorities below. However, we shall consider that aspect along with another RCR said to have been filed by the revision petitioner herein. However, considering the nature of the disputes we -9- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 direct the revision petitioner/tenant to clear off the entire arrears till date before 4[th] February, 2021 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Fourt thousand only) per month. The amount shall be deposited before the court below within the stipulated time.” 7. On 14.01.2021, when R.C.Rev.No.19 of 2021 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and ordered that matter to be listed along with R.C.Rev.No.13 of 2021. In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim stay of all proceedings in execution of the order of eviction in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Munsiff-I, Kozhikode, for a period of one month. 8. On 08.04.2021, when these matters came up for consideration, this Court vacated the interim order of stay granted in both the cases, since the order of this Court dated 13.01.2021 in R.C.Rev.No.13 of 2021 has not been complied with by the petitioners-tenants, till then. 9. On 16.09.2021, when these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitionerstenants reported that the 1[st] petitioner died on 13.09.2021. The learned counsel sought time to file an application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 1[st] petitioner. By the order of this Court dated 21.10.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021, the -10- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 legal heirs of the deceased 1[st] petitioner were impleaded as additional petitioners 3 to 5 in both Rent Control Revisions. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerstenants and also the learned counsel for the respondentlandlord. 11. The issue that arises for consideration in these Rent Control Revisions is as to whether any interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode in R.C.P.Nos.139 of 2010 and 137 of 2013, which stands confirmed by the judgment dated 29.09.2020 of the II[nd] Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in R.C.A.Nos.152 and 153 of 2019. 12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants made an attempt to reopen the finding on the question of landlord-tenant relationship. In the order dated 06.12.2018 in R.C.Rev.Nos.282 and 283 of 2016, this Court concluded the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the denial of title by the tenants is not bona fide. In the absence of any challenge made against that order, that finding has attained finality, which cannot be re-agitated in this Rent Control Revisions filed under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, -11- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 the contentions raised by the petitioners-tenants on the issue regarding landlord-tenant relationship cannot be entertained in these Rent Control Revisions. 13. Now, we shall deal with the question as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010 under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act and also the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.137 of 2013, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 29.09.2020 in R.C.A.Nos.152 and 153 of 2019. 14. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. Section 11(2)(b) of the Act deals with arrears of rent. As per Section 11(2)(a), a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for a direction in that behalf. As per Section 11(2)(b) If the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, it shall make an -12- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall make an order rejecting the application thereof by him. As per the proviso to Section 11(2)(b), an application under this sub-section shall be made only if the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six per cent per annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof. 15. In R.C.P.No.139 of 2010, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act on a finding that the tenants have kept in arrears the monthly rent payable in respect of the petition schedule building, with effect from March 2010 onwards. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants could not point out any materials to arrive at a conclusion that the aforesaid finding of the Rent Control Court, which now stands confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.152 of 2019 is either perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Act. On a query made by -13- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants would submit that no materials were placed before the Rent Control Court to prove that the tenants have paid rent in respect of the petition schedule building from March, 2010 onwards. In such circumstances, the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010, which now stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority in its judgment in R.C.A.No.152 of 2019, warrants no interference in R.C.Rev.No.19 of 2021. 16. Now, we shall deal with the question as to whether any interference is warranted in the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.137 of 2013 fixing the fair rent of the petition schedule building as Rs.6,000/- from the date of petition, with 10% annual increase, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 29.09.2020 in R.C.A.No.153 of 2019. 17. Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with determination of fair rent. As per Section 5(1), the Rent Control Court shall, on application of the tenant or landlord of a building, fix the fair rent for such building after holding such enquiry as it thinks fit. As per Section 5(2), in fixing the fair rent the court shall take into -14- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 consideration the property tax or house tax fixed for the building at the time of letting in the property tax register or house tax register of the local authority within whose area the building is situated. As per the proviso to Section 5(2), in the case of (i) any residential building, or (ii) any non-residential building, excepting a building to which fittings have been affixed or in which machinery have been installed and such fittings or machinery have been excluded: The fair rent fixed may in proper cases be lower than, but shall in no case exceed by more than fifteen per cent, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax for the building, prevailing two years immediately before the date of application, was fixed, or, if the building was not assessed to property tax or house tax before the said period of two years, the monthly rent on the basis of which the property tax or house tax prevailing immediately before the date of application was fixed. 18. As per Section 5(3) of the Act, if there is no property tax or house tax fixed for the building or if it is not based on a rental basis or if the building is situated in an area which is not a City, Municipality, Panchayat or in any other local authority, the fair rent shall be fixed after taking into -15- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months preceding the letting. As per Section 5(4), in case the allotment of the building is made by the Accommodation Controller, he may, provisionally fix the fair rent for the building and the Rent Control Court may, on application by an aggrieved party modify the fair rent so fixed. As per Section 5(5), the Rent Control Court shall intimate the fair rent of the building fixed to the local authority within whose jurisdiction the building, in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed, is situated. The local authority on receipt of such intimation shall make a record of the fair rent fixed in the register kept for the purpose and shall make the register available for inspection in such places and in such manner as may be prescribed. The register so prepared shall be kept upto-date so as to contain full particulars in regard to the rent fixed in respect of a building by the Rent control Court and also the subsequent variation thereto made by the said Court. 19. In **Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2004 (1) KLT 767]** , this Court laid down the principles governing the fixation of fair rent and the Apex Court affirmed the said decision in **Edgar Ferus v. Abraham Itticheriya [2009 (1)** -16- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 ## **KLT 673 (SC)]** . 20. Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that once the Rent Control Court is called upon either by the tenant or the landlord to decide the fair rent, it is the responsibility of the court, after holding an enquiry as it thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to fix the fair rent. In order to arrive at a decision regarding the fair rent, the powers of the court are not circumscribed by the pleadings. The court can take into consideration the evidence let in by the parties and relevant to the issue while fixing the fair rent, following the guidelines laid down in **Edgar Ferus [2004 (1) KLT 767]** _._ 21. In the instant case, the petition schedule building is situated in Big Bazar-Valiyangadi in Kozhikode, having an area of 186 sq.ft. The rent of the said building was originally fixed 50 years back, at the rate of Rs.45/- per month. For fixation of fair rent of the said building, the landlord filed R.C.P.No.137 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court. When that matter was pending before the Rent Control Court, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed, who submitted Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) rough sketch. On the side of the landlord, PWs.2 and 3 were examined. After considering the -17- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule building as Rs.6,000/- per month, with effect from the date of petition, with 10% annual increase, vide its order dated 08.07.2019. As can be seen from the said order of the Rent Control Court, the landlord, who was examined as PW1, deposed in tune with the averments in the Rent Control Petition. According to PW1, the commercial importance of Big Bazar-Valiyagadi, wherein the petition schedule building is situated has gone up considerably. Moreover, inflation is high and the value of money has diminished. Therefore, monthly rent at the rate of Rs.45/- which was fixed more than 50 years back is not at all justifiable. The landlord relied on Ext.C1 and the evidence of CW1 to show that there is an adjacent room having an area of 280 sq.ft. fetching rent at the rate of Rs.9,200/- per month. The data available in the website of the Economics and Statistical Department of the Government, of which judicial notice was taken, shows that the cost of living has gone up more than thrice compared to the year of 1998 which was taken as the base. The rent of the petition schedule building was fixed more than 50 years ago. Ext.X1 and evidence of PW3 would show that the fair rent of a room adjacent to -18- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 petition schedule shop room is Rs.5750/- per month. 22. In the impugned order, the Rent Control Court noticed that when the tenants were attacking the paramount title of the landlord, they were not disputing the rate of rent sought to be fixed by the landlord and hence, there is no counter evidence to infer that the landlord is not entitled to get fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule shop room as on the date of petition. Before the Rent Control Court, relying on the decision in **Thomas M. Joshua Vs. Church of South India Trust Association [2019 (3) KHC 316]** , the tenants contended that when the landlord is relying on materials which arose subsequent to the filing of the Rent Control Petition, the fair rent has to be fixed from the date of the order. The Rent Control Court noticed that, in the petition, the landlord has not relied upon any materials which arose after the institution of that petition. Therefore, the Rent Control Court found that the law laid down in the decision referred to supra has no application in the facts of the case on hand. After considering the materials on record, the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule building having an extent of 186 sq.ft., at Rs.6,000/-. Considering the importance of area and the rate of inflation prevalent, the -19- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 Rent Control Court granted 10% annual enhancement. 23. In R.C.A.No.153 of 2019, the Appellate Authority considered in detail the challenge made by the tenants against fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority noticed that the petition schedule building is situated in a very prominent locality, Valiyangadi in Kozhikode town. It is the main commercial centre in Kozhikode town. The report of the Commissioner would show that the building is having an area of 186.89 sq.ft. It is true that the building is old. But it is not in a condition where the business is not possible. Even on the date of inspection by the Commissioner, business is being done in the building. The Commissioner has also reported that a similar building situated in the same locality Rs.9,200/- is the monthly rent. But the area of that building is 280 sq. ft. For another building, Rs. 5,750/- per month is the rent. The trial court considered the area of this building, the importance of locality, the rent for the similar buildings in the locality, etc., and fixed Rs.6,000/- per month as the fair rent, which is very reasonable in all sense. Therefore, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court. The finding of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.137 of 2013 which stands -20- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.153 of 2019 cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal, which warrants no interference in R.C.Rev.No.13 of 2021 in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 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 at its discretion. 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 -21- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 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 re-appreciation 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 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 -22- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 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. 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, -23- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 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 reappreciating 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 Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in **Rukmini Amma Saradamma** that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer -24- ## R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 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, it cannot be said that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act in R.C.P.No.139 of 2010 and also the fixation of fair rent at Rs.6,000/- in R.C.P.No.137 of 2013, which now stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the judgment dated 29.09.2020 in R.C.A.Nos.153 and 153 of 2019, is either perverse or patently illegal or it suffers from any legal -25- R.C.R.Nos.13 & 19 of 2021 infirmity, warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid judgment and order of the courts below. In the result, these Rent Control Revisions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** AV/14/1