Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Abdul Azeez, S/o. Karukapadath Saidu - Revision Petitioner
Versus
Alimuhammed, S/o. Mandayipurathveettil Kunjhikader & Ors. - Respondents
R.C. Rev. No. 57 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022
For the Revision Petitioner: Hashim V.H., P.M. Abdul Jaleel (Kodungallur), T.V. Shaji.
For the Respondent: K.M. Abdul Kader, A.S. Sreejan.
Point of Law: High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.
Headnote:
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) – Revision jurisdiction - Order of eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room - Seeking permission to reconstruct the tenanted premises and permit him to adjust the cost of construction in the rent which accrues later - High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. [Para 32,33]
Finding of the Court:
High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report - High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word ‘propriety’ it cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of evidence - 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 - Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the expression ‘propriety’ in Section 20 of the Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the impugned judgment of the High Court, in the light of the aforesaid ratio, the Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist.
Result: Rent Control Revision is allowed.
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kodungallur, a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein-landlord, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order of eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The 1st respondent-landlord has also filed R.C.P.Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of 2001 against the tenants in the adjacent shop rooms. During the pendency of these Rent Control Petitions, a compromise petition was filed in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and connected matters. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 19.03.2004, disposed of R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and connected matters in terms of that compromise. Accordingly, the petitioner-tenant and others gave vacant possession of the shop rooms to the 1st respondent-landlord for reconstruction. As per that compromise, the landlord has to complete the reconstruction of the building within ten months from 19.08.2004 and allot one room each to the respective tenants.
2. The tenant in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 filed I.A.No.1213 of 2013, invoking the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, seeking permission to reconstruct the tenanted premises and permit him to adjust the cost of construction in the rent which accrues later. On receipt of notice in I.A.No.1213 of 2013, the 1st respondent-landlord entered appearance and filed counter, contending that the tenant is not legally entitled to such a relief on account of the delay of 9 years in filing the application. The landlord has also raised a contention that, due to financial problem, he assigned the property in question to a third party. In view of the said contention, the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as the 2nd respondent in I.A.No.1213 of 2013, who has also filed counter in the said interlocutory application.
3. The Rent Control Court, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001, by the order dated 27.03.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.110 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Irinjalakkuda. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 19.02.2020. Challenging the order dated 27.03.2017 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 and also the judgment dated 19.02.2020 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.110 of 2017, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.
4. On 30.03.2022, when this Rent Control Revision came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-subsequent purchaser.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the reasoning of the authorities below, while rejecting the request for re-induction sought for in I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference by this Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. In view of the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, the landlord has got the statutory obligation to re-induct the tenant in the reconstructed building. Such an obligation of the landlord goes along with the property, on subsequent transfer of the property to a third party.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-subsequent purchaser would contend that I.A.No.1213 of 2013 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2001 filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Court, invoking the provisions under the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, after long lapse of 9 years from the order of eviction, was h
