Back
1996 Supreme(Ker) 389
Judges : U.P.SINGH,S.SANKARASUBBAN
Chacko - Appellant
Versus
Lakshmiamma - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 1084 of 1996
Decided On : 11/12/1996
Advocates Appeared :
P.C. Chacko (Sr. advocate) & Roy Chacko For Appellant P.G.P. Panicker & Government Pleader (P.K. Behanan) For Respondents
The District Judge, as the appellate authority, had the power to pass orders on revision petitions filed against the orders passed by the subordinate judges as appellate authorities. The revisional court was entitled to admit fresh evidence. The tenant cannot later contend that no buildings were available when the final order in the revision was passed if he failed to prove the claim under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 11(2)(b), Section 11(3), Section 18, Section 20 - The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court. The court found the tenant to be a defaulter and upheld the landlady's need. The appellate authority and the revisional court also confirmed the eviction order. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the revisional court to decide afresh. The revisional court vacated the order under Section 11(2)(b) and found the landlady's need to be bonafide. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order, which was dismissed by the single judge. The District Judge, as the appellate authority, had the power to pass orders on revision petitions filed against the orders passed by the subordinate judges as appellate authorities. The revisional court was entitled to admit fresh evidence. The tenant cannot later contend that no buildings were available when the final order in the revision was passed if he failed to prove the claim under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court. The landlady alleged that the tenant was in arrears of rent and she required the building for her son's printing press. The Rent Control Court found the tenant to be a defaulter and upheld the landlady's need. The appellate authority and the revisional court also confirmed the eviction order. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the revisional court to decide afresh. The revisional court vacated the order under one section of the Act and found the landlady's need to be bonafide. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order, which was dismissed by the single judge. The petitioner appealed against this dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The District Judge, as the appellate authority, had the power to pass orders on revision petitions filed against the orders passed by the subordinate judges as appellate authorities. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the revisional court to properly exercise its power under the Act. The revisional court was entitled to admit fresh evidence. The petitioner's contention that he was deprived of adducing evidence before the revisional authority was not raised earlier and cannot be accepted. The tenant cannot later contend that no buildings were available when the final order in the revision was passed if he failed to prove the claim under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The District Judge, as the appellate authority, had the power to pass orders on revision petitions filed against the orders passed by the subordinate judges as appellate authorities. The revisional court was entitled to admit fresh evidence. The tenant cannot later contend that no buildings were available when the final order in the revision was passed if he failed to prove the claim under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
Result: The writ appeal was dismissed.
Sankarasubban, J.
The above Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 10488 of 1995. The Original Petition was filed challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Additional District. Judge, Kottayam in R.C.R.P. No. 88 of 1982.
2. etitioner is the tenant of a building of which the first respondent is the landlady. He took the building which is situated in the town of Kottayam for running an automobile workshop. The building was rented out in 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 228/-. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month.'
3. and-lady filed RCP No. 11/80 before the Rent Control Court, Kottayam for evicting the tenant, under S.11(2) (b) and S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act). It was alleged in the petition that monthly rent was in arrears from 6.5.1979. The bonafide need alleged was that the 1 and lady wants the building for starting a printing press for her elder son Chandrasekhara Menon. It was further stated in the petition that a press has already been made available and she had taken steps for equipping the building and premises to run the press.
4. etitioner/ tenant filed objection. He denied that there was any arrears of rent and also the bonafide need alleged. Further, he contended that he is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court on an appraisal of the evidence, found that the tenant was a defaulter of rent. Further, it was also found that the landlady requires the building for the purpose of her son and that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act.
5. Against the judgment of the Rent Control Court, petitioner preferred RCA No. 6/82 before the Rent Control appellate Authority, Kottayam. The Rent Control appellate Authority by its judgment dated 18.11.1982, copy of which is produced as Ext. P2 in the Original Petition, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the Rent Control Court. Against the judgment of the appellate Authority, petitioner preferred RCRP No. 88/82. The District Court in revision, set aside the order of eviction on the ground of bonafide need, but confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Landlady thereafter preferred a revision before this Court as CRP No. 1641/ 83. That revision was dismissed by this Court confirming the finding of the District Court. Thereafter, the landlady filed appeal before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 310/95. That appeal was disposed of by order dated. 3.1.1995, copy of which is produced as Ext. P3 in the Original Petition. Supreme Court held that the main dispute raised in the appeal was whether the revisional authority committed an error of law in interfering with the order of the court below in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. It was of the view that the matter stands concluded by the decision in Rnkmini Amma Saradammav. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 499-and so the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court were set aside and the matter was remitted to the Additional District Judge to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. On remand, the Additional District Judge, Kottayam heard R.C.R.P. No. 88/82 again and disposed of the same by order dated. 20.6.1995, copy of which is produced as Ext. P4 in the Original Petition. It found that the order under S.11(2)(b) has been vacated under S.11(2)(c) of the Act. Regarding the contention of bonafides, it found that both the authorities had concurrently held that the landlady's need is bonafide. It also discussed the power under S.20 and held that re-appreciation of the evidence by the revisional court is not called for. It was also held that no irregularity or impropriety' or illegality in the order passed by the appellate Court was brought to its notice. Hence. the revision Petition was dismissed.
6. etitioner thereafter filed O.P.No. 10488/95 under Arts.226 & 227 of the Co
