The court upheld the interpretation of Sec. 11(3) of the Act, confirming that detailed evidence must demonstrate the existence of vacant property for eviction claims to be barred.

ORDER

Harilal, J.

The revision petitioners are the tenants who are confronting with an order of eviction under Sec.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (for short 'the Act'). In the earlier round of litigation, when the matter has come up before this Court, this Court remanded the case back to the trial court, for fresh consideration, on the question, whether the claim for eviction was hit by the first proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act. The parties were allowed to amend their respective pleadings also with respect to the first proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act.

After the amendment, the Rent Control Court considered the petition afresh, in view of the evidence available, on record, and found that the claim for eviction is not hit by the first proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants had preferred an appeal and, in appeal, after re- appreciating the evidence, on record, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings, under the first proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act, have come up again before this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition. It is the case of the tenants that, at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, the landlords had been in vacant possession of the buildings disclosed by Exts.B1, B2, B6, B8, B9, B13, B14 and B16 and B3, B4, B7, B10, B11, B12 and B15. But, the courts below have not meticulously considered the occupancy of the aforesaid buildings, at the time of filing the petition, in its correct perspective. On the other hand, the landlords contend that the courts below have meticulously analysed each and every shop room pointed out by the tenants and found that none of those shop rooms are vacant and suitable for the requirement of the landlords at the time of filing the petition.

4. We have meticulously gone through the concurrent findings of the courts below. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the landlords, the courts below have meticulously considered the possession of each and every shop room in view of the Commission Report and found that, at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, those shop rooms were occupied by different tenants. In Ext.C1 Commission Report, the Commissioner has specifically stated that those shop rooms are occupied by different tenants. No other contra evidence was adduced by the tenants. In the absence of contra evidence, the courts below are justified in relying on the Commission Report and the oral evidence tendered by the fourth petitioner as P.W.1.

5. Being a revision, filed under Sec.20 of the Act, this Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the entire evidence, on record, as the revision is not an appeal in this disguise. The concurrent findings, on factual issues, cannot be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction, unless it is found that the courts below have failed to consider the relevant evidence or placed reliance on irrelevant evidence. The said view is supported by the decision of this Court in Lekshmi v. Labbaha Kunju Ameer [2005 KHC 1017]. Here, the revision petitioners have no such case that the courts below have placed reliance on irrelevant evidence or failed to consider the relevant evidence or evidence was appreciated on an erroneous or illegal proposition of law. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with respect to the first proviso to Sec.11(3) of the Act, when the courts below concurrently and unambiguously found that Exts.B1 to B17 and C1 and C2 reports would not disclose the existence of any vacant building in the possession of the landlords at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition.

6. In the above view, we find that there is no reason to