Point of Law : Though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Palakkad, a petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein– landlords, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The building originally belonged to late T.V. Krishna Iyer, the father of respondents 1 to 4. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition, for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, is that of the landlords to discontinue tobacco business conducted by respondents 3 and 4 herein (which was originally conducted by their father) and to start a restaurant in the building owned by the landlords, utilising the petition schedule shop room with Door No.31/665 as well as the adjacent shop rooms with Door Nos.31/664 and 31/666.

2. In R.C.P.No.21 of 2018, the tenant entered appearance and filed counter opposing the order of eviction sought for. Before the Rent Control Court, on the side of the landlords, the 3rd respondent herein was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the tenant, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked and the tenant was examined as DW1. The commission report and rough sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a) respectively. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition, for seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, is bona fide; that the provisions under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application to the facts of the case; and that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Control ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order of eviction sought for under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act was declined. By the order dated 12.06.2020 in R.C.P.No.21 of 2018, the tenant was directed to immediately handover vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlords. If the tenant fails to comply with the said order, the landlords were entitled to get vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room, by evicting the tenant through the process of court. The landlords were also found entitled to realise the costs of the proceedings from the tenant and his assets.

3. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.13 of 2020 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-V), Palakkad. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 30.11.2020, thereby confirming the order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. Challenging the order dated 12.06.2020 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.21 of 2018 and the judgment dated 30.11.2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.13 of 2020, the tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

4. On 13.01.2021, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim order staying the execution of the order of eviction dated 12.06.2020 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.21 of 2018 and also the judgment dated 30.11.2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.13 of 2020, for a period of three months. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of eviction granted under Section 1