Back
1985 Supreme(Ker) 260
Judges : THOMAS
KARTHIAYANI - Appellant
Versus
VENKITACHALA IYER - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 2019 of 1984
Decided On : 10/03/1985
Advocates Appeared :
T.P. Kelu Nambiar; P.G. Rajagopalan; P. Devakikutty; Johnson Mathew; For Petitioner V.R. Venkitakrishnan; For Respondent
The main legal point established is the limited jurisdiction of the District Court in allowing additional evidence at the revisional stage and the supervisory nature of its revisional powers.
Headnote:
eviction - landlord tenant dispute - Act 2 of 1965, S. H(3), S.11(3), S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - The court discussed the provisions of Act 2 of 1965, including S. H(3), S.11(3), and S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and their interpretation in the context of the landlord-tenant dispute. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the District Court in allowing additional evidence and the supervisory nature of its revisional powers.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need for the occupation of his second son. The District Court, in reversal of previous findings, allowed the eviction based on a Commissioner's report that the other building owned by the landlord was not suitable for residential use due to a functioning flour mill.
Finding of the Court:
The District Court's order allowing additional evidence was found to be vitiated by jurisdictional error, and the case was remanded for fresh disposal without considering the additional evidence.
Issues: The issues included the landlord's claim for eviction, the admissibility of additional evidence at the revisional stage, and the jurisdiction of the District Court in allowing such evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Court's power of revision is limited to examining the records to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity, or propriety of the order under challenge, and it cannot convert itself into an evidence-collecting or fact-finding court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the District Court's order and remanded the case for fresh disposal without considering the additional evidence.
1. A landlord in quest for an order of eviction of his tenant finds that the desired order is within the ken of his sight but yet outside the limit of his reach, drifting like a mirage. The order he seeks for is one under S. H (3) of Act 2 of 1965.
2. A litigation initiated by him in 1978 has already covered a chequered career by now and the present stage is when the District Court has upheld his claim as bona fide, in reversal of a contrary finding by the two Courts earlier. In arriving at that finding the District Court has appointed a Commissioner and basing on the report of that Commissioner, it held that though the landlord is in possession of another building, the same is not suitable for his residential purposes and hence "the possession of that building by the landlord is not a ground to disallow the claim under S.11 (3) of the Act". The said order of the District Court is challenged by the tenant in this revision petition filed under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Some more facts are to be narrated for a proper appreciation of the points urged in this revision. The landlord filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he bona fide needs the building for the occupation of his second son, Seetharaman, for a separate residence for him. (Though this landlord had claimed eviction on the ground of arrears of rent also that ground is riot alive for consideration now, as conceded to by both sides). During the first stage, the landlord, for some reasons, did not mount the witness box. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application for eviction mainly on the ground of want of bona fides of his claim. On appeal, the Appellate Authority had remanded the case to the Rent Control Court for affording one more opportunity to the landlord to get himself examined as a witness. The tenant challenged that order of remand by filing a revision before the District Court, and a further revision before this Court, but all without success and the matter went back to the original Court. There, the landlord was examined as pw. 4. Even then, the Rent Control Court was not persuaded to uphold the claim as bona fide and hence the petition was again dismissed. The Appellate Authority concurred with that finding. Both the Courts have observed that the landlord is in possession of another building in the same town and that the landlord has not taken out a Commission to report that the said building is not residential. The Appellate Authority further held that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction because there are no special reasons to grant that order, in view of the fact that he is already in possession of another additional building of his own in the same locality.
4. When the matter reached the District Court in revision for the second time, the landlord filed an application there as I.A. No. 573 of 1984 praying for the issue of a Commission to ascertain the condition of the other building in his possession. Nothing is stated in the affidavit in support of that petition as to any reason or reasons, why he did not file a similar application either in the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority. Against the objections filed by the tenant, the District Court has allowed that Interlocutory Application and a Commissioner was appointed for the aforesaid purpose. In the report filed by the Commissioner, he has expressed his opinion that the said other building is not residentiable because a flour mill is functioning in the ground floor of that building. The Commission report was marked by the District Court as Ext, C1. That Revisional Court has reappraised the whole evidence in the light of Ext. C1 Commission report and consequently set aside the orders of the two Courts below and found that the other building is not fit for residential use on account of the croaking sound disseminated from the flour mill which is housed in its ground floor. Hence the impugned order was passed, allowing
