VARGHESE ITTOOP Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge in R.C.R.P. 122 of 1983. The landlord is the petitioner. The petition relates to a two storeyed building in Broadway, Ernakulam. This building belonged to his father and as per Ext Al gift deed it was given to the petitioner on 30-3-1973. This building was taken on rent originally on 1-9-65 by the father of respondents 8 and 9 herein for conducting a business in the name "Indian Hardware Stores". Monthly rent payable was Rs.750/-. Petitioner contended before the Rent Control Court that he wanted the building in question for conducting a stationery business. The petition was originally filed against respondents 8 and 9 alleging that the petitioner bona fide required the building for own occupation. Respondents 8 and 9 contended that the building in question was taken on rent by them representing a firm of partners by name "T. H. Ibrahim Karim and Company" for the purpose of doing business in the name and style "Indian Hardware Stores" and that the partnership consisted of others also. It was alleged that the 8th respondent had retired from the firm and the business was being conducted by respondents 9 and 4. So, the 4th respondent was subsequently impleaded and this was followed later by impleadment of respondents 5 to 7 also. These respondents contended that the lease was obtained on behalf of the firm "Indian Hardware Stores" and respondents 8 and 9 retired from the business and the same is being carried on by respondents 4 to 7. The respondents denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioner.

(2.) The Rent Controller held that the lease was in favour of respondents 8 and 9 and they had filed an earlier application for fixation of fair rent and therefore the contention that the lease was in favour of a firm was rejected. The petitioner's father was having stationery business nearby and the petitioner was doing business alongwith his father and therefore the Rent Controller held that he did not bona fide require the building. This order was challenged by all the contesting respondents including respondents 8 and 9. The appellate authority held that respondents 8 and 9 are the real tenants and that the petitioner bona fide required the building for own occupation. This order was challenged by respondents 4 to 7 before the District Judge, Ernakulam. The District Judge by exercising the revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and held that the petitioner did not require the building and that the petition was only a pretext for evicting the respondents. This finding is challenged in this proceeding.

(3.) Two fold contentions have been urged by the petitioner's counsel. At first it is contended that the District Judge was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority. The District Judge had only supervisory jurisdiction and the reappraisal of the whole evidence and coming to a different conclusion altogether was illegal and unjustified in the facts of the case. The next contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that respondents 4 to 7 are subtenants and they are bound by the order of eviction passed against respondents 8 and 9 and they have no right to file a revision against the order of the appellate authority.