Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 396

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Addissery Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
Cheruvalath Krishnadasan – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2528-29 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4492-4493 of 2018)
Decided on : 08-06-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Rajeev, Advocate
For the Respondent:Abid Ali Beeran P Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
Bonafide requirement of landlord for additional accommodation – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Headnote:
Rent and Eviction – Bonafide requirement of landlord for additional accommodation – When Appellate Authority relied upon Commissioner’s Report stating that there are 36 rooms in building and that majority of rooms are let out, showing that some of rooms in occupation of landlord are lying vacant, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in this finding of fact – Even assuming that High Court is correct in its construction of Section 11(8) of Kerala Rent Control Act, stating that vacant rooms in other buildings cannot be looked at, this finding of fact of Appellate Authority puts paid to any bonafide requirement of additional accommodation of landlord in facts of present case – Reliance upon Building Tax Assessment Register by Appellate Authority, showing that some of rooms belonging to landlord were lying vacant, again, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in the manner done by High Court – Further, finding that a room leased by mother-in-law of tenant in another building is not in tenant’s possession only because he had his mother-in-law’s permission to store goods when necessary, and especially during festival occasions, on a temporary basis, would also show that he cannot be considered to be in possession of said room, as rightly held by Appellate Authority – Interfering with this finding of fact, again, without any perversity or misappreciation of evidence by Appellate Authority would clearly be outside High Court’s ken in its revisional jurisdiction – Equally, finding of comparative hardship, which is a finding of fact not otherwise found to be perverse, cannot be upset in the manner done in present case by High Court – Judgment of High Court set aside and that of Appellate Authority restored. [Sections 11(8) and 20 of Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965] (Paras 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant is the tenant of two shop rooms – one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, each admeasuring 60 square feet. The tenant is doing textile business in the room situated on the ground floor, using the first floor as a godown. The ground floor room was let to the tenant on 10.10.1991 at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- which was later enhanced to Rs.800/-. The first floor room was let to the tenant on 10.07.1998 at a monthly rent of Rs.250/- which was later enhanced to Rs.317/-.Control Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 30.01.2016, reversed the judgment of the trial court. In a revision petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, High Court interfered with the findings of fact by the Appellate Authority.
Findings of the Court:
In the facts of the present case, when the Appellate Authority relied upon the Commissioner’s Report stating that there are 36 rooms in the building and that the majority of the rooms are let out, showing that some of the rooms in the occupation of the landlord are lying vacant, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in this finding of fact.
Result : Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman. J.

Leave granted.

2. In the present case, the appellant is the tenant of two shop rooms - one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, each admeasuring 60 square feet. The tenant is doing textile business in the room situated on the ground floor, using the first floor as a godown. The ground floor room was let to the tenant on 10.10.1991 at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- which was later enhanced to Rs.800/-. The first floor room was let to the tenant on 10.07.1998 at a monthly rent of Rs.250/- which was later enhanced to Rs.317/-.

3. The respondent-landlord filed eviction petitions being RCP No. 175/2013 as well as RCP No. 176/2013 on 11.10.2013 in respect of the two rooms in question. The said petitions were filed on three grounds, namely, arrears of rent, bonafide requirement for additional accommodation for the landlord's business, and material damage to the premises, under Sections H(2)(b), 11(8) and H(4)(h), respectively, of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ["Kerala Rent Control Act"].

4. The trial court in its judgment dated 28.02.2015, held against the landlord on the first and the third ground. However, so far as bonafide requirement of additional accommodation was concerned, it was held by the trial court that the landlord is the Managing Partner of M/s Prabeesh Constructions, and that since the office of this firm was presently only in a small room in the same building, the other two rooms would be required by way of additional accommodation for installing staff members and materials. The trial court found that the Commissioner's Report in the present case did not point out that any particular rooms were vacant in the premises. Equally, the production of Exhibit B3, i.e., the Building Tax Assessment Register, which recorded that some rooms in the ownership of the landlord are vacant could not be relied upon. Further, it was held that the tenant had in his possession another room in a neighbouring building, albeit leased by his mother-in-law, and stating that, since the mother-in-law was not examined by the tenant, the reasonable inference that could be drawn is that the aforesaid room is in possession of the tenant. Finally, on comparative hardship, the trial court held that the landlord will be able to run his establishment in a better manner, whereas the tenant is not able to establish much hardship caused to him. In this view of the matter, the eviction petitions were decreed under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act.

5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by its judgment dated 30.01.2016, reversed the judgment of the trial court. It held:

"12. According to the appellant, if at all the respondent needs any rooms for the purpose of expanding his office, suitable rooms are available in his possession. It has come in evidence that in the building in which the petition schedule rooms are situated, there are as many as 36 rooms. According to the appellant, the same rooms are lying vacant in this building. The respondent would deny the contention. But in Ex.C1 report, the Commissioner only would say that majority of the rooms in the building are leased out. This shows that some of the rooms in the occupation of the petitioner are lying vacant. It is true that the Commissioner has not specified the number of rooms lying vacant. The appellant also could not point out the number of the rooms lying vacant in the possession of the petitioner."

Apart from this, it also relied upon several vacant rooms being available in several other buildings owned by the landlord. So far as Exhibit B3 is concerned, the trial court's finding was reversed, stating:

"16. The lower court has blamed the appellant for not producing any documents to show that vacant rooms are available in the possession of the respondent. I cannot agree with the observation made by the lower court. When there is an admission by PW1 that there are vacant rooms, there is no need to produce any document. It can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 396

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, B.R. Gavai, JJ.Addissery Raghavan – AppellantVersusCheruvalath Krishnadasan – RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 2528-29 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4492-4493 of 2018)Decided on : 08-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTSBonafide requirement of landlord for additional accommodation – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (4)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Addissery Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
Cheruvalath Krishnadasan – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2528-29 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4492-4493 of 2018)
Decided on : 08-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
Bonafide requirement of landlord for additional accommodation – Findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.