The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to act as the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The court also emphasized the importance of establishing the bonafide need for own occupation by the landlords and the requirement to prove sublease by producing satisfactory evidence.

Headnote:
JURISDICTION - RENT CONTROL - S.18(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - The Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to act as the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Act. The jurisdiction is conferred on the District Judges having jurisdiction over the areas within which the provisions of the said Act have been extended. The Additional District Judge also has jurisdiction over the area where the building is situated if the Rent Control Act has been made applicable to that area.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between landlords and a tenant regarding eviction on the grounds of sublease, bonafide occupation, and reconstruction. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of sublease, bonafide occupation for respondents 2 to 4, and reconstruction. The tenant contested the claim, asserting that the revision petitioner was the tenant from 1-5-1966 onwards and that rent was collected from him. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide need and sublease. The Appellate Authority allowed the petition on the ground of bonafide need and sublease. The revision petitioner challenged the judgment of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the 5th Additional District Judge, Ernakulam who disposed of the appeal is not an officer or authority conferred with powers of Appellate Authority by general or special order of Government notified in the Gazette under S.18(1) (a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to act as the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority's finding on the aspect of sublease is challenged by the revision petitioner on the ground that the Appellate Authority has not carefully analyzed the documents produced by him. The Appellate Authority's finding on the aspect of bonafide need is also challenged by the revision petitioner on the ground that the Appellate Authority has not considered the evidence on record and that the need alleged by the landlords is not supported by evidence.
Issues: The issues before the court were: 1. Whether the Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to act as the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act? 2. Whether the transfer of possession or sublease by the tenant in favor of the revision petitioner has been proved by producing satisfactory evidence? 3. Whether the finding of the Appellate Authority that the need of the landlord is bonafide is supported by evidence or whether the finding is unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: The Additional District Judge has jurisdiction to act as the Appellate Authority under S.18 of the Act. The Appellate Authority's finding on the aspect of sublease is challenged by the revision petitioner on the ground that the Appellate Authority has not carefully analyzed the documents produced by him. The finding on the aspect of sublease is reversed, and it is held that the landlords are not entitled to get eviction on the ground of sublease. The finding on the aspect of bonafide need is also reversed, and it is held that the landlords have not established the need for own occupation or the bonafides of the claim. The finding on the aspect of reconstruction was not adjudicated by the Appellate Authority and is not challenged in revision.
Final Decision: The revision is allowed, and in reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the order of the Rent Control Court is restored. Parties shall suffer their costs.

Judgment :-

Balanarayana Marar, J.

Revision is directed against the judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in R.C. A.20/91. That was an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P. 5/86 filed by respondents 1 to 4 (hereafter referred to as 'landlords') against deceased 5th respondent (hereafter referred as tenant) and revision petitioner who is alleged to be in possession on the strength of a sublease or transfer by the tenant. The original lease was admittedly in favour of the tenant and the subject matter of the lease is a residential-cum-scooter workshop situated at Valanjamabalam at Ernakulam in Cochin Corporation. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of sublease, bonafide occupation for respondents 2 to 4 and reconstruction. A business under the name and style "Tyre Resoles (India)" was conducted by the tenant. By Al letter dated 10-5-60 the tenant informed the first respondent that he had closed down the business and was intending to start a new business in the name "Scooter Garage". By Ext. A2 letter dated 10-7-1966 the first respondent was informed that the tenant had started the new business and requested her to send all future communications and rent receipts in the name of Proprietor, Scooter Garage. Rent receipts were therefore issued in the name of the proprietor of Scooter Garage. The monthly rent was since then enhanced. A shed is alleged to have been constructed unauthorisedly without the knowledge and consent of the landlords. They required the tenant to surrender the premises for their own occupation after constructing a residential house in the premises. They came to know from the reply that the tenant had subleased the premises to revision petitioner. Hence the petition for eviction on the three grounds aforementioned.

2. The tenant in his counter statement admitted the entrustment of the building but contended that revision petitioner is the tenant from 1-5-1966 onwards and that rent thereafter was collected from him. It was further contended that first respondent and her husband knew the proprietor of the Garage, the revision petitioner and rent was received from him. In a separate counter statement revision petitioner, second respondent in the original petition raised identical contentions. In particular, he contended that rent was periodically enhanced and he was paying the rent in his capacity as the Proprietor of Scooter Garage run by him in the premises. Fie disputed the bonafides of the claim for own occupation and further contended that the building did not require reconstruction.

3. The husband of the first respondent was examined as pw.1. Two other witnesses were examined on the side of the landlords. Both the respondents in the original petition got themselves examined. Large number of documents were also produced on either side. The Rent Control Court by order dated 15-12-1990 rejected the claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide need and sublease. The petition was

dismissed with a direction that the landlords will be at liberty to file a separate petition for reconstruction under S.11(4)(iv) of Act 2 of 1965. The landlords carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority. The alleged subtenant, revision petitioner herein filed memorandum of cross objections challenging that part of the order giving permission to the landlords to move the Rent Control Court for eviction on the ground of reconstruction. The Appellate Authority by judgment dated 16-3-1992 set aside the order and allowed the petition on the ground of bonafide need and sublease. The cross objections were dismissed. Hence this revision by the second respondent in the original petition.

4. Heard counsel on both sides.

5. Revision petitioner challenges the judgment of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the 5th Additional District Judge, Ernakulam who disposed of the appeal is not an officer or authority conferred with powers of Appellate Aut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(Ker) 240

Cases Referred (3)