Madras High Court
M/S.Leo Coffee Grinding Works vs D.Mohanalakshmi on 6 March, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2012 (NOC) 323 (MAD.)
Author: V.Periya Karuppiah
Bench: V.Periya Karuppiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.03.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH C.R.P.(NPD).No.1215 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 M/s.Leo Coffee Grinding Works represented by its Sole Proprietor P.R.K.Bhaskaran ..Petitioner -Vs- D.Mohanalakshmi ..Respondent Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 made in RCA.787 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 20.04.2004 made in RCOP.No.349 of 2000 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murthy For Respondent : Mr.A.Venkatesan .......... O R D E R
This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.787 of 2004 dated 15.12.2009 in confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.349 of 2000 dated 20.04.2004 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
2. The Revision Petitioner herein was the respondent/tenant and the respondent herein was the petitioner/landlady before the learned Rent Controller.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner/landlady before the Rent Controller are as follows:-
The petitioner is the landlady. The petition property, viz., house, ground and premises at No.288, EVR Periyar Salai, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 29. The respondent is a tenant of one portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The outer side of the walls of the premises has not been plastered from the very inception. The doors and windows were made up of country wood and all the doors and windows in the upstairs were eaten by the termites, due to which the petitioner wants to remove the door and window frames. In the first floor, the flooring has not been plastered. The steps leading to the first floor and the outer walls of the steps have not been plastered. No weather-proofing was done on the first floor and therefore, there was a leakage and other natural causes, due to which, large portions of the ceiling have fallen down and also paved way for cracks and the iron rods used for binding the ceiling area being visible even to a naked eye. So far as the portion under the occupation of the respondent in the ground floor is concerned, though it is periodically maintained, that portion is also in a weak condition. She is in urgent and bonafide need of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a pucca building on modern lines. The petitioner is taking necessary steps for obtaining plan sanction for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The petition premises is located in the heart of arterial main road and in a commercial area just opposite to theatres, shopping complex, hotels / restaurants, banks, markets etc., The petitioner undertakes that the work of demolishing the building shall be commenced by her within one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date she recovers possession. Hence, the petition.
4. The brief facts of the case of the respondent / tenant before the Rent Controller are as follows:
The petitioner is not the owner of the land. The land in question belongs to Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Vahayara Devasthanam, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 29. The said Devesthanam is a proper and necessary party to these proceedings. The petitioner is in arrears of payment of rent to the said Devasthanam as on 31.12.1999. There is no bonafide in the petition for eviction. The petitioner has no sufficient means to put up any construction. The respondent denies the allegation that the petitioner is taking steps for obtaining plan sanction. The petition premies is in good and sound condition and does not require any demolition and reconstruction. This petition may be dismissed.
5. The learned Rent Controller had conducted enquiry by examining the petitioner's husband as PW.1 and the Engineer as PW.2 and admitted the documentary evidence on the side of the petitioner as Exs.P1 to P14. The respondent / tenant did not examine himself as a witness, but examined the Engineer as RW.1 and his customer as RW.2 and has produced Ex.R1, Engineer's Report. After appraising the evidence adduced on both sides, the learned Rent Controller was convinced to evict the respondent/tenant from the building under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
6. Aggrieved against the said eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the respondent / tenant had preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.787 of 2004. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion of confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and eviction order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent / tenant has preferred the present Revision before this Court.
8. For convenience, the relationship in between parties as landlady and tenant has been maintained in this judgment.
9. Heard Mr. K.Murthy, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / tenant and Mr. A.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the respondent / landlady.
10. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / tenant would submit in his argument that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He would also submit that the written argument submitted by the tenant before the said authority produced in Pages 37 to 48 was not considered in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority, even though concurrent, will not sustain. He would further submit in his arguments that the learned Rent Controller had also erred in coming to a conclusion that the landlady has got sufficient means for reconstruction of the building. He would also submit that the request of the tenant to accommodate the building after the reconstruction of the building was not heeded by the landlady and the undertaking to demolish the premises and to reconstruct within a fixed period of time cannot be considered as bonafide. He would further submit that the landlady ought to have asked for only additional accommodation as provided in the Act and it should not be a case of demolition and reconstruction. He would further submit that there is no evidence to show that the building was in a state of condition to be demolished and the evidence adduced by PW.1 and PW.2 are interested witnesses. He would also submit that the Engineer, who was examined as PW.2, was an inexperienced man and he was not able to speak about the true state of the building. He would further submit that the landlady, if really wanted to show that the building was very old, she could have produced photographs as evidence along with the Engineer's evidence. He would further submit that the building in possession of the tenant was not in a dilapidated condition nor having any crack in the said building, even though it was an old building. He would also submit that the evidence of RW.1 - Engineer, who was examined by the tenant, would go to show that the basement was placed with cement beams laid under five feet depth and construction has been raised with brick and cement mortar and the spotted flooring is available apart from the RCC roofing in the building. He would also submit that the fair rent proceedings were also conducted along with this petition before the learned Rent Controller and in the said proceedings, it was described as Type - I building and therefore, there is no question of any demolition as required by the landlady. He would further submit that the financial status of the landlady was only evidenced by the possession of 60 sovereigns of gold jewels and the deposit money realised from the property at Thiruninravur and the rental income from the property at Purasaivakkam in the name of her father-in-law would not in any way help the landlady to show her financial capacity to reconstruct the building and the deposit shown at Rs.2,74,200/- would not be sufficient to reconstruct the building after demolition. He would also refer to the admission in the evidence of PW.2 that he was not aware of the true state of building, while he was replying to various questions in cross examination and that he was not able to say about the roofing in the first floor and the measurement of the building and the other ground floor portions. He would further refer in his arguments regarding the evidence of RW1, Engineer examined by the tenant, which would go to show that the building was in a well maintained condition and it requires no demolition. He would cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1995 (1) CTC 340 (Ameeruddin and four others ..vs.. Premakumari) for the principle that if the building is not in a dilapidated condition, there cannot be any bonafide on the part of the landlady to invoke the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He would also draw the attention of the Court to yet another judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (III) CTC 469 (R.Mohammed Hanif ..vs.. Abdul Wahab and others) for the principle that the building in good condition, would not require any immediate demolition and reconstruction, and it cannot be sought to be evicted on the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He would further submit in his arguments that it was a serious contention raised by the tenant that the site under the building was belonging to Arulmighu EKambareswarar Temple and neither the learned Rent Controller nor the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had framed issues as to "whether the denial of the title to the property was bonafide", in order to render a conclusion; and therefore, the order passed by both the courts below have to be set aside. He would further submit that the property was actually belonging to the temple authorities and the landlady was entitled to the superstructure only and therefore, the temple was also a necessary party to the proceedings. He would further submit in his arguments that the attempt taken by the tenant to summon the document to show that the ground was belonging to the temple was denied by the learned learned Rent Controller and in Civil Revision Petitions filed by the tenant, this Court has accepted the finding of the learned Rent Controller, but had left open the issue to be decided by the learned Rent Controller, but there was no issue framed for the purpose of deciding the title. For that he would rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in "2010 (1) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 216 (Elumalai ..vs.. Kotteeswaran @ Kotti Naicker)" in support of his arguments. He would further submit in his arguments that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, even though concurrent, are liable to be interfered, since they are found to be perverse. He would further submit that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had without discussion had come to a conclusion that the property was absolutely belonging to the landlady and the said finding would go to show that the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse and it is liable to be set aside. A judgment of this Court reported in "1998 (1) CTC 531 (Purandara Vittal ..vs.. Mrs.Radha Bai Dr.S.E.Shivasenkar represented by Power Agent V.S.Palaniandi)" was cited in support of his argument. He would further submit that the bonafide intention of the landlady was not established through evidence and therefore, the landlady cannot invoke the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the building and therefore, the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority are liable to be interfered and set aside. He would therefore, request the Court to allow the Revision Petition, accordingly.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent / landlady would submit in his arguments that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had discussed the evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller and had confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. He would also submit that the written arguments submitted by the tenant need not be fully considered when it was not relevant for coming to a conclusion in the appeal. He would further submit that the learned Rent Controller had elaborately discussed about the title to the vacant site and had come to a conclusion that the landlady was having absolute right over the vacant site and building and therefore, it is futile to argue that a separate issue to be framed and it has to be discussed by the courts below. This Court had in an earlier occasion in CRP.(PD).Nos.292 and 293 of 2004 filed by the tenant against the order of refusal to issue subpoena to the Executive Officer of the Temple, to send for the documents for proving that the landlady is not the owner of the premises, had categorically found that there is no necessity for issuing subpoena and however it was left with the rent control proceedings to decide the issue of title. He would further submit that the learned Rent Controller had analysed the oral and documentary evidence submitted in this regard and found that the site was originally belonged to the Government and it was adversely possessed by the mother of the landlady and titled accrued through adverse possession and in consideration of the same, a patta was granted in favour of the mother of landlady in Ex.P4 and the said property was thereafter gifted in favour of landlady through Ex.P3. He would further submit that the property was originally belonged to Government and the temple would not have any right / title over the said property and therefore, the objection raised regarding the title to the vacant site was not bonafide on the part of the tenant. He would further submit in his arguments that the documentary evidence produced by the landlady was not denied by the tenant by examining himself as a witness. He would further submit that the requirement of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act have been established by the landlady through cogent evidence by examining PW.1, her husband and by producing the documentary evidence to show her financial capacity and the steps taken for demolishing the building by producing the permission in Ex.P5 and the permission to construct the building in Ex.P6. He would also submit that the evidence produced in Ex.P8 to Ex.P13 would go to show that the landlady is having financial capacity to put up new construction. He would further submit that the first floor portion is in occupation of the landlady's husband-PW.1 after it was vacated by the tenant and other ground floor portions were already vacated for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of the building and are in possession of the landlady and the tenant, who is in possession of the building, had raised unsustainable objection in order to prolong the proceedings. He would further submit that the keeping the vacated portions in adjacent shops and the possession of the first floor portion as vacant would go to show the bonafide of the landlady to demolish and reconstruct the building. He would further submit that the construction of the building itself was without plastering on three outer sides and the building was admittedly and old one and the earlier plan dated 1962 produced in Ex.P2 would go to show that the building was 38 years old on the date of petition and presently the said building is 50 years old and therefore, the condition of the building is not a criteria for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He would also bring it to the notice of this Court a judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 179 (Sridharan ..vs.. S.Natarajan and others) for the principle that there is no requirement that the building should be in dangerous and dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition for seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He would further submit in his arguments that the building was admittedly more than 38 years old and is located in an important place at EVR Periyar Salai, (Poonamallee High Road), which is a busy commercial locality and the buildings have sprang up all around the said building and this building alone is kept in an old fashion and therefore, the decision reached by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the eviction order of Rent Controller need not be disturbed. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 68 (Parasmal ..vs.. R.Mohan) in support of his arguments. He would further submit that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had applied her mind and found that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was sound and was exhaustive and therefore, it has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and there is no necessity for the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority to discuss about the irrelevant arguments submitted by the tenant, in her judgment. He would further submit that the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was not perverse, but it was based upon the evidence on facts in the given case and therefore, there is no need to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and thus, the Revision may be dismissed.
12. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
13. The learned Rent Controller had accepted the contentions of the landlady seeking an eviction against the tenant from the premises in the ground floor of D.No.288, EVR Periyar Salai, Aminjikarai, Chennai - 29, within the given boundaries in the petition. The tenant used to pay a rent of Rs.1500/- per month to the said premises and was continuing as a tenant. However, he had disputed the title regarding the vacant site as if it belonged to Arulmighu Ekambareswarar Temple, Aminjikarai. The said plea of the tenant ought to have been substantiated only by him. However, an attempt was made by the tenant to send for certain documents from the temple and it was not allowed by the learned Rent Controller and therefore, he preferred Revisions before this Court in CRP.(PD). Nos.292 and 293 of 2004 and both the revision petitions were dismissed by this Court on 29.03.2004 by holding that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was correct. However, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner in those petitions (learned counsel for the tenant) made a request that the order passed in those petitions would affect his claim and therefore, the court below was directed to dispose of the matter without being influenced by the orders of this Court. However, the said plea was considered by the learned Rent Controller and he had come to a conclusion that the property was originally belonging to the Government and the landlady's mother was in possession adverse to the interest of the Government for more than 30 years and therefore, the Government, considering her possession for more than the statutory period, had granted patta in Ex.P4 and thus, she got the title to the said land and thereafter, the mother had executed a settlement deed in favour of the landlady in Ex.P3. The said evidence was considered and the learned Rent Controller had found that the vacant site was also belonging to the landlady. The said decision reached by the learned Rent Controller was also considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and found that the relationship of landlady and tenant was an established one. Even in the Revisions had earlier in CRP.(PD).Nos. 292 and 293 of 2004, this Court held that the tenant cannot dispute the ownership of the landlady, when he himself admitted the tenancy and in possession of the said property. Therefore, the findings reached by the learned Rent Controller, which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the property was fully owned by the landlady, cannot be interfered. The judgment referred to in this aspect by the learned counsel for the tenant reported in 2010 (1) MWN Civil 216 cited supra may not be appropriate to the present case, since the title to the property was detailedly discussed by the learned Rent Controller and a finding has been given.
14. Now the questions are whether the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller that the request of the landlady to demolish and reconstruct the building immediately was bonafide and the concurrent finding of the Appellate Authority that the building was in a state of demolition and reconstruction could be accepted as correct.
15. The learned Rent Controller had discussed about the evidence of PW.2, the Engineer who had spoken about the building and its state and also the evidence of the Engineer examined by the tenant as RW.1 and had considered that the building was constructed in the year 1962 and was aged 38 years and the first floor portions and other portions were found open with the iron steel rods due to the dilapidated balcony portion and there were the marks of leakage due to rain water. It is also an admitted case that the outer wall of the building was not plastered from the beginning and it was open to the sun light and rain all these years from the date of its construction. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the tenant himself had corrected the cracks and removed the wooden entrance by replacing it with iron rolling shutters and therefore, the portions of the building may be intact, but the actual state of building would be in a very bad condition. The said evidence was accepted by the learned Rent Controller, which was also acknowledged by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (III) CTC 469 ((R.Mohammed Hanif ..vs.. Abdul Wahab and others) would lay down the following principle:-
"16. Therefore, one of the essential requirements for ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is the age and condition of the building. The condition of the building, as already observed, can be arrived only on the basis of evidence let in by the landlord, particularly when the revision petitioner tenant herein, has specifically stated that the building in question is in good condition and it does not require any immediate demolition and reconstruction."
In accordance with the principle laid down, the evidence of landlady given that the building was not in good condition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
16. Similarly, the finance condition as spoken by PW.1 in support of the documents produced by the landlady in Exs.P9 to P13 were also accepted that they have got sources for raising funds towards the expenditure to built the construction. The courts below have also considered the demolition plan in Ex.P5 and the payment of charges for about Rs.27,255/- and have come to a conclusion that the landlady has bonafide intention and also has financial capacity to reconstruct the building if demolition is ordered. In the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 179 (Sridharan ..vs.. S.Natarajan and others) it has been held in respect of the financial capacity of the landlady, which would run as follows:-
"23. Landlord need not produce currencies before the Court to prove his means. PW.1 has stated that he owns immovable properties which is sufficient to establish means of the landlord. Since the property is in prime locality, which is developing, the petitioner could very well mobilize funds either from Banks or Financial Institutions. Holding that raising of funds for constructing a structure in commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as Banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas, in Venugopal ..vs.. Karuuppusami and Another, 2006 (3) MLJ 29 Supreme Court has observed thus (at page 32 of MLJ):
"10. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single storey structure and to construct a multi-storeyed building which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bonafide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as Banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs.
In the instant case, it is quite obvious that the premises is situated in Myladuthurai Main Road, stated to be a commercial locality in town. Hence, it would not be difficult for the Revision Petitioner / landlord to raise funds either from financial institutions or Bank, who will be willing to advance funds to put up new construction."
17. In the aforesaid judgment, the principles of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (3) MLJ 29 (Venugopal ..vs.. Karuuppusami and Another) was followed and it was found further that the building being situated in a busy locality, it would not be difficult to raise funds either from financial institutions or Banks, who will be willing to advance funds to put up new construction.
18. In yet another judgment of this Court reported in "2007 (3) MLJ 68 (Parasmal ..vs.. R.Mohan)" the financial capacity and the bonafide intention of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction of the building have been considered and it has been categorically laid down as follows:-
"30. In the instant case, it is quite obvious that the premises is located in Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, which is a busy commercial locality in the city. Hence, it would not be difficult for the landlady (sic) to raise funds either from financiers as well as from Banks, who are willing to advance funds to erect new structure in such commercial areas."
19. Considering the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, I could see that the building is admittedly at Poonamallee High Road, which is a commercial locality. The landlady, who had got sufficient financial capacity was established through evidence and she may also resort to such financial institutions and banks for raising further funds for the purpose of constructing the building. Therefore, the findings reached by both the courts below regarding the financial capacity to raise funds cannot also be interfered in this Revision.
20. Furthermore, the bonafide intention of the landlady to evict the tenant from the premises has been questioned. However, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority have come to a conclusion that the intention of the landlady was bonafide to demolish and reconstruct the building. In the same judgment of this Court as referred to above in 2007 (3) MLJ 179 it has been categorically laid down as follows:-
"18. Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, order for eviction may be made if the Controller is satisfied that the building is bonafidely required by the landlord for immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolishing is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. The basic stipulation for passing an order of eviction is satisfaction of bonafide requirement. The bonafide requirement can be established by several ways. In Vijaya Singh ..vs.. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996 (2) CTC 586, Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines as to what are the relevant materials to be taken into account to find out whether requirement of the landlord is bonafide or not. The Supreme Court has held as:
"(1) bonafide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants;
(2) the age and condition of the building;
(3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act".
Supreme Court has further held that these are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. No Court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller."
21. As regards the points laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (2) CTC 586 (Vijaya Singh ..vs.. Vijayalakshmi Ammal) as was referred in the aforesaid judgment, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority have discussed the evidence regarding the intention of the landlady and have considered that the landlady had kept the shops adjacent to the building in question vacant apart from occupying the first floor portion vacated by another tenant in her possession. They had also discussed that the demolition fees was also paid by the landlady to the Corporation and the landlady had obtained necessary planning permission and the plan required for reconstruction. In the said circumstances, the finding of the courts below that the sole intention of the landlady was only to demolish and reconstruct the building and not to evict the tenant under the guise of the demolition and reconstruction. The landlady has also given an undertaking to the effect that she is ready to demolish the building within one month from the date of handing over of possession and to complete the construction within three months. Therefore, the bonafide intention of the petitioner as satisfied by the courts below cannot be doubted.
22. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court based upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the tenant in 1997 (III) CTC 469 (R.Mohammed Hanif ..vs.. Abdul Wahab and others), 1995 (1) CTC 340 (Ameeruddin and four others ..vs.. Premakumari) are not appropriate for being applied in this case.
23. Furthermore, the learned Rent Controller had elaborately discussed the points and had come to a correct conclusion that the landlady is having bonafide intention of requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction and thereby to evict the tenant from the premises. The said findings given by the learned Rent Controller was also considered with reference to the evidence by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and she had also come to the conclusion of approving the findings given by the learned Rent Controller. In the said circumstances, I find there is no perversity in the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority merely because her order is precise, but relevant to the facts in question. It is also the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as followed in the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) MLJ 68 (Parasmal ..vs.. R.Mohan). The relevant paragraph in the aforesaid judgment would run as follows:
"35. Under Section 25 of the Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as Appellate Court to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an Appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. In "K.M.Abdul Razzack ..vs.. Damodharan (2001) 1 MLJ 37 (SC) : 2000 (4) Supreme 575 in para 5, it was held as follows at p.40 of MLJ:
"5. .... It is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. We, therefore, hold that the High Court, while allowing the Revision, transgressed its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 25 of the Act. ...."
24. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred and followed by this Court as sated above, it is very clear that this Court cannot re-assess and re-appraise to come to a different finding recorded by the courts below.
25. In the earlier paragraphs discussed, I find that there is no perversity or any violation of principles of law on the part of the courts below in perceiving the evidence properly to its actual meaning and the findings recorded by both the leaned Rent Controller as well as learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are concurrent. Therefore, the reasons put forth by the tenant for interfering and setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is not at all feasible. Accordingly, the orders passed by both the courts below are confirmed and the Revision Petition fails and deserves dismissal.
26. In fine, I am of the considered view that the Revision Petitioner / tenant has not made out any points to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Time for vacating the premises is three months. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mra