A review of a judgment cannot be equated with an appeal; it must show an apparent error in the record rather than a possibility of differing views.

O R D E R

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The respondents in R.C.Rev.No.434 of 2017 are the petitioners. As per the order dated 01.06.2022, the R.C.Rev. was allowed. In this petition filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioners seek to review that order.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. R.C.Rev.No.434 of 2017 arose on the judgment dated 13.10.2017 in R.C.A.No.6 of 2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kasaragod and the order dated 23.03.2016 in R.C.P.No.15 of 2012 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Hosdurg. R.C.P.No.15 of 2012 was filed seeking eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal and the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.6 of 2016 ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act by allowing the appeal. The order of the Rent Control Court rejecting the plea for eviction under (2)(b) of the Act was confirmed. The respondent filed R.C.Rev.No.434 of 2017 before this Court challenging the said judgment. The revision was allowed holding that the need urged by the respondents was not bona fide for the reason that no non- occupation of room No.1366 was not properly explained. It was further found that when such a vacant room was available, the plea for eviction by the petitioners herein was hit by the first proviso to (3) of the Act.

4. The petitioners would contend that room No.1366 got vacated after the commencement of this eviction proceedings and that being a subsequent event could not be a reason for declining eviction. The finding in that regard in the order dated 01.06.2022 is said to be an error. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions in Rameshwar and others v. Jot Ram and others [ (1976) 1 SCC 194 ], Speed Line Agencies v.

T.Stanes Company [ (2010) 6 SCC 257 ] and Riyas v. Mohammed Nazer [2018 (1) KLT 754] in order to fortify his contention that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, such a subsequent event should not have been taken cognizance of for declining eviction.

5. In Rameshwar (supra) the question was relating to the right of a tenant to purchase land owner's right under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The landowner was found to be a large landowner and therefore the tenant's right to purchase was upheld. During pendency of appeal the land owner died and on fragmentation of the land, the legal representatives individually became small landowners. They contend that the right of the tenants to purchase the ownership of the landlord was lost. Declining that contention, the Apex Court held,-

“9. The impact of subsequent happenings may now be spelt out. First, its bearing on the right of action, second, on the nature of the relief and third, on its impotence to create or destroy substantive rights. Where the nature of the relief, as originally sought has become obsolete or unserviceable or a new form of relief will be more efficacious on account of developments subsequent to the suit or even during the appellate stage, it is but fair that the relief is moulded, varied or reshaped in the light of updated facts. Patterson v. State of Alabama [1934 (294) US 600. 607], illustrates this position. It is important that the party claiming the relief or change of relief must have the same right from which either the first or the modified remedy may flow. Subsequent events in the course of the case cannot be constitutive of substantive rights enforceable in that very litigation except in a narrow category (later spelt out) but may influence the equitable jurisdiction to mould reliefs. Conversely, where rights have already vested in a party, they cannot be nullified or negated by subsequent events save where there is a change in the law and it is ma