Revision of eviction orders under the Rent Control Act requires clear evidence of hardship; re-evaluation of factual findings is not permitted absent serious irregularities.

ORDER

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The tenants who suffered a common order of eviction under Section 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Rent Control Act’, for short) challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

2. The landlords filed six separate eviction petitions before the Rent Control Court against the tenants occupying different shop rooms in a building owned by them, contending that they require the vacant possession of all the six tenanted shop rooms for stocking materials which are being used for their perfumery business. The landlords contended that they occupy a part of the building, but they need the ground floor of the building itself for storing the materials. Eviction was also sought against some of the tenants (the respondents in R.C.P.No.48/2015 & 50/2015) under Section 11 (4)(i) of the Rent Control Act, on the ground of sub-letting.

3. The claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need for additional accommodation was resisted by the tenants. According to them, landlords have no bona fides in making the said claim as they have enough vacant space in the very same building for accommodating the projected need. It is also contended by them that the hardship which may be caused to the tenants by granting the eviction order will outweigh the advantage of the landlords, as there are no vacant rooms in that locality to shift their business.

4. All the cases were tried together and disposed of through a common order. During the trial, one of the landlords was examined as PW1 to prove their claim and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked in evidence. The tenants examined RW1 to RW9 and got marked in evidence Exts.B1 to B36. Apart from the said evidence, Commissioners appointed in three cases were also examined as CW1 to CW3 and Exts.C1 to C3 were marked.

5. After elaborately referring to the oral and documentary evidence and specifically adverting to the contentions of the tenants, the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority concurrently found that the claim of the landlords is genuine and they require the tenanted premises for additional accommodation for their personal use. Both the authorities further found that the comparative hardship of the landlords would be higher if the petitions for eviction were not allowed.

6. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

7. It was attempted to guide us through the evidence adduced before the trial court to convince us that both the courts did not appreciate the evidence in a proper way and thereby they arrived at a wrong conclusion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reports of the Commissioners would reveal that the landlords have sufficient vacant space in the very same building itself. However, we have noted that both the authorities elaborately considered such aspects and concluded that the reports of the Commissioners would not show that those rooms were vacant. The Appellate Authority specifically observed that it was not possible to arrive at such a conclusion from the Commission Reports. It is also found that, for accepting the suggestion of the tenants that there is sufficient space in the said building, the landlords should convert the open terrace in the building to a covered room, which is unwarranted and impermissible.

8. After considering the contentions of both sides, we find no reason to re-evaluate the correctness of those findings of facts. In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [ (1999) 5 SCC 645 ] the Honourable Apex