Kerala High Court
Kizhakke Pulinjoli Rajan vs Cheeram Veettil Santha on 10 August, 2022
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
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 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
R.C.REV.NO. 246 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.133 OF 2017
OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE), VATAKARA AND THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2017 IN
R.C.P.NO.36 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),
VATAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER:
KIZHAKKE PULINJOLI RAJAN,
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, VATAKARA AMSOM
DESOM, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
B.KRISHNAN
SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHEERAM VEETTIL SANTHA,
D/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 71 YEARS, VATAKARA AMSOM
DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673101.
2 CHEERAM VEETTIL MADHAVI,
D/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, VATAKARA AMSOM
DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673101.
3 CHEERAN VEETTIL DEVI,
D/O. BAPPU, AGED 56 YEARS, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673101.
2
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
4 CHEERAM VEETTIL RAMA,
D/O. BAPPU, AGED 66 YEARS, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673101.
BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.253 OF 2019,
268/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
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 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/19TH SRAVANA, 1944
R.C.REV.NO. 253 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.135 OF 2017
OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE), VATAKARA AND THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 IN
R.C.P.NO.41 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),
VATAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER:
KIZHAKKE ONAKKULLI PARAMBATH K.RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KELAPPAN, PENSIONER,
NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, MEPPAYIL P.O, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 104.
BY ADVS.
C.VATHSALAN
SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN
SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
SMT.THUSHARA.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHEERAM VEETTIL SANTHA
AGED 71 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, SWASTHAM, VATAKARA
AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL VATAKARA,
P.O. NUT STREET, VADTKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN-673 101.
2 CHEERAM VEETTIL MADHAVI,
D/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, SWASTHAM, VATAKARA
AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL VADAKARA,
P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
4
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
PIN-673 101.
3 CHEERAM VEETTIL DEVI,
D/O. BAPPU, AGED 56 YEARS, SWASTHAM, VATAKARA
AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL VADAKARA,
P.O. NUT STREET, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673101.
4 CHEERAM VEETTIL REMA,
D/O. BAPPU, AGED 53 YEARS, SWASTHAM, VATAKARA
AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL VADAKARA,
P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673 101.
BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.246 OF 2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
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 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/19TH SRAVANA, 1944
R.C.REV.NO. 268 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.134 OF 2017
OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE), VATAKARA AND THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 IN
R.C.P.NO.42 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),
VATAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER:
THAZHE MADATHIL KUMARAN
AGED 83 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
PAZHANKAVE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,
P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 104.
BY ADVS.
C.VATHSALAN
SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN
SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
SMT.THUSHARA.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHEERAM VEETTIL SANTHA
AGED 71 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, SWASTHAM,
VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
VATAKARA, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 101.
2 CHEERAM VEETTIL MADHAVI,
AGED 66 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, SWASTHAM,
VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
6
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
VATAKARA, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - 673 101.
3 CHEERAM VEETTIL DEVI,
AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. BAPPU, SWASTHAM,
VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
VATAKARA, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - 673 101.
4 CHEERAM VEETTIL RAMA,
AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. BAPPU, SWASTHAM
VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL
VATAKARA, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - 673 101.
BY ADV SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 10.08.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.246 OF 2019 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
7
R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Since common issue is raised, these Rent Control Revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. R.C.Rev.No.246 of 2019:- The petitioner is the respondent- tenant in R.C.P.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara, a petition filed by the respondents herein- landlords (who are co-owners of the petition schedule shop room), seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the son of the 1st respondent, who wants to start a mobile accessory shop in the petition schedule shop room. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant filed R.C.A.No.133 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 27.03.2019, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant 8 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.
2.1. On 13.06.2019, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, notice on admission was ordered to the respondents-landlords. This Court granted interim stay of the eviction proceedings, initially for a period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.
3. R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019:- The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, a petition filed by the respondents herein- landlords (who are co-owners of the petition schedule shop room), seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the son of the 2 nd respondent, who wants to start a tailoring shop in the petition schedule shop room. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant filed R.C.A.No.135 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 25.03.2019, thereby confirming 9 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.
3.1. On 20.06.2019, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondents.
4. R.C.Rev.No.268 of 2019:- The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, a petition filed by the respondents herein- landlords (who are co-owners of the petition schedule shop room), seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the son of the 3 rd respondent who wants to start an aluminum fabrication shop in the petition schedule shop room. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant filed R.C.A.No.134 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 26.03.2019, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control 10 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.
4.1. On 25.06.2019, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents.
5. Heard the respective counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.246 of 2019 would contend that, the need projected in the R.C.P.No.36 of 2016 would not fall within the purview of Section 11(3) of the Act, since the need of the son of the 1 st respondent herein to start a mobile accessory shop in the petition schedule shop room is not the need of a dependent family member of respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are co-owners of the petition schedule shop room. Therefore, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority ought to have rejected the prayer for eviction sought for under Section 11(3) of the Act. In addition to the above contention, in R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019, arising out of R.C.P.No.41 of 2016, the learned counsel would submit that, since the tenant is conducting a tuition center in the petition schedule shop room, in case the order 11 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 of eviction is not interfered with, the tenant may be granted time till March 2023 to vacate the petition schedule shop room. In R.C.Rev.No.268 of 2019 arising out of R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 the learned counsel would submit that the need projected for seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is that of the 3 rd respondent's son to start aluminum fabrication shop in the petition schedule shop room. It has come out in evidence that, that said shop room is not suitable for aluminum fabrication work. Then PW1 shifted his stand by contending that he requires the petition schedule shop room as an office for his aluminum fabrication shop. Therefore, the prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act ought to have been rejected by the authorities below.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents- landlords would contend that, when the petition schedule shop rooms are owned by the landlords as co-owners, the need of a dependent family member of one among the co-owners for occupation of the tenanted premises would fall within the purview of Section 11(3) of the Act. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the authorities below concurrently found that the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The learned counsel would point out that the tenant in 12 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019 arising out of R.C.P.No.41 of 2016 is having another building in which he is conducting tuition center. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019 would point out that the tenant in R.C.P.No.41 of 2016 is conducting tuition center in both the buildings.
8. Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 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 13 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 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.
9. The common contention raised in all these Rent Control Revisions is that the need projected in the Rent Control Petitions for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act would not fall within the purview of Section 11(3) of the Act, since the need of the son of one among the co-owners to start business in the petition schedule shop room is not the need of a dependent family member of other co-owners of that shop room.
10. 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. In view of the provisions under Section 11(3) of the Act, in case the tenanted premises is own by co-owners the need of a dependent family member of one among the co-owners for occupation of the said premises would squarely falls within the purview of bona fide need contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Act. In that view of the matter we find 14 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 no merits in the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions.
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 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.
15R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019
12. 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 terms to the landlords 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.
13. In Nalakath Saidali Haji v. Kalluparamba Musthafa and others [2015 (4) KHC 815], a Division Bench of this Court relied on the law laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra. The Division Bench also noticed the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kizhakkayil Suhara v. Manhantavida Aboobacker (dead) by Lrs. [(2001) 8 SCC 19] that, not merely the need of the landlord but also the need of the dependants for whom eviction is sought, should be established to be bona fide. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, neither the Rent Control Court nor the Appellate Authority has considered the need put forward by the landlord in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions referred to supra and in the manner in which, the same ought to have been considered. Both the authorities were influenced by the fact that the landlord was holding an employment visa. The Division Bench noticed that, there 16 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 is absolutely no evidence available on record regarding the nature of the employment visa that the landlord was holding or the terms subject to which the said visa has been issued to him. The conclusions of both the authorities below are based on the admission made by the landlord, while he was cross-examined as PW1. Nothing precludes the landlord from going abroad for employment. The case of the landlord in the Rent Control Petition is that, he has left his employment abroad and has come back to his native place. The fact that he is still holding an employment visa, does not militate against the bona fide need pleaded by the landlord.
14. 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.
15. In Regy V. Edthil v. Hubert Leslie D'Cruz [2016 (2) KLJ 164], a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705], wherein the Apex Court held that, in order to order eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord, the statutory 17 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 requirement is that there must be an actual pressing need, not a mere whim or fanciful desire; it must be in praesenti and also the landlord must not be in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. In the said decision, the Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], wherein it was held that, the term 'bona fide' or 'genuinely' refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of Legislative intent is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire, in contra distinction with a mere desire, by the Rent Control Legislation. In Abdul Salam v. Sebastian [2013 (4) KLT 592], a Division Bench of this Court held that, when the landlord has clearly admitted in his evidence that vacant rooms are in his possession, he has to attribute special reasons for not occupying it, as the need mentioned under Section 11(3) of the Act cannot be a mere desire. On the facts of that case, since there was no sufficient opportunity given in the absence of plea, the Rent Control Petition was remitted to the Rent Control Court to enable the landlord to adduce evidence on that aspect and for fresh consideration by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, if there is admission on the part of the landlord of coming into possession of vacant rooms, unless 18 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 special reason is given for not occupying the same, the need cannot be said to be bona fide and he is not entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act.
16. 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 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).
17. In George T.I. v. K.L. Stanley [2013 (4) KHC 543] , this Court, following a line of decisions, held that, prior experience is not a pre-requisite for a person to start a business. In the said decision, it was held as follows;
"The last contention is want of previous experience. Going by 19 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, previous experience cannot be insisted to test the bona fide need of the landlord, as it is not a requirement for anybody to conduct a business that he should have previous experience."
(underline supplied)
18. In the instant case, after analysing the pleadings and evidence on record the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently found that the need projected in the Rent Control Petitions for seeking order of eviction of the tenanted premises is bona fide. The said finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the respective Rent Control Petitions and the Rent Control Appeals are based on the oral testimony of the dependent family member of one among the co-owners, who were examined as PW1 in the respective Rent Control Petitions. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner- tenant in the Rent Control Revisions that the need of the dependent family member of one among the co-owners is not the need of a dependent family member of other co-owners, which would not fall within the purview of Section 11(3) of the Act has already been repelled. The petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions has no specific contention insofar as the finding of the authorities below on the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act. In R.C.Rev.No.268 of 2019, arising out of R.C.P.No.42 of 20 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 2016, the tenant has raised a contention that the petition schedule shop room is not suitable for aluminum fabrication work. The Appellate Authority in the judgment dated 26.03.2019 in R.C.A.No.134 of 2019 found that the suitability of the premises is the prerogative of the landlord and the tenant cannot dictate on it, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Ambika C. v. K. Padmanabhan and others [2017 (3) KHC 673]. The Appellate Authority in paragraph 12 of the judgment found that the main contention of the tenant is that there is no front yard to the petition schedule shop room and the area is congested. The attempt of the tenant was to show that there is no sufficient front yard for keeping materials and machineries for aluminum fabrication work. The Appellate Authority found that the said issue has been properly explained by PW1, who has deposed that he intends to utilize the petition schedule shop room as office premises. The fabrication works are to be carried out at work sites as per the requirements of the customers. The said finding of the Appellate Authority cannot also be said to be either perverse or patently illegal.
19. Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 deals with revision. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, in cases, where the appellate authority empowered 21 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 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 sub- section (1) shall be in its discretion.
20. 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 22 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 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.
21. 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.
22. In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the 23 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 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, 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 24 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist.
23. 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.
24. 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 25 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 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.
25. 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 while ordering eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act is neither perverse nor patently illegal, 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 orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions would submit that considering the situation prevailing in the country on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the tenants in R.C.Rev.Nos.246 of 2019 and 268 of 2019 may be granted six months' time to vacate the tenanted premises. Since the tenant in R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019 is conducting a tuition center, time may be granted till March 2023.
27. On the above request made by the learned counsel for 26 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 the petitioner-tenant in the respective Rent Control Revisions, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would submit that a reasonable period may be granted to the tenants for giving vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, on condition that the tenants shall clear the entire dues towards arrears of rent and continue to pay the monthly rent for the remaining period, without any default. The learned counsel would also point out that the tenant in R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019 is conducting tuition center in another building.
28. 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 landlords.
29. In such circumstances, these Rent Control Revisions are dismissed declining interference on the order of eviction granted by the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act; however by granting time till March, 2023 to the petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.No.253 of 2019, to surrender vacant possession of the 27 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 petition schedule shop room to the respondents-landlords, considering the fact that he is conducting a tuition center in the said shop room. The petitioner-tenant in R.C.Rev.Nos.246 and 268 of 2019 are granted six month's time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the respondents-landlords, considering the situation prevailing in the Country on account of Covid 19 pandemic, subject to the following conditions;
(i) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition No.41 of 2016 shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the petitioners-landlords on 31.03.2023 and that, he shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop room and further that he will conduct tuition center in the petition schedule shop room only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities;
ii) The respondent-tenant in the Rent Control Petition Nos.36 and 42 of 2016 shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court 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 28 R.C.Rev.Nos.246, 253 & 268 of 2019 schedule shop rooms to the petitioners-landlords within six months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop rooms and further that they will 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;
(iii) The respondents-tenants in the 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 four 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;
(iv) Needless to say, in the event of the respondents-
tenants in the 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 petitioners-landlords will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr