R KOTHANDARAMA NAIDU Vs. CARONA SAHU CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition, an agriculturist having two children, both married and living in the same house along with their father, is the petitioner/ landlord. He filed a petition under S. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act') to evict the first respondent tenant which is a company having business all over India. The petition was filed on the ground that the building is bona fide required for his own occupation or for the occupation of his dependent children. The Rent Control Court held that the sons are dependent on the petitioner, that they have necessary means to start the business, that the business which the petitioner wanted to start in the building was stationery business and that the schedule building is the only shop building owned by the petitioner in Palghat Municipality. But, as the petitioner is an agriculturist and as the particulars of the amount proposed to be invested was not mentioned in the application, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the bona fide was not established. In that view of the matter, the petition for eviction was dismissed. The landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord established his case that the building is bona fide required for own occupation and that the order of the Rent Control Court to the effect that the landlord is an agriculturist and, therefore, the building is not bona fide required for own use is erroneous. Hence, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control Court. A revision was filed by the tenant against the appellate order and the Revisional Court, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the finding of the Rent Control Court is preferable to that of the appellate authority. He, therefore, allowed the revision and confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. In this writ petition, the landlord challenges the orders of the Rent Control Court and the Revisional Authority, viz. Exts. P3 and P5.

(2.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the revisional authority exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the final fact finding authority, viz. the appellate authority. He pointed out that under S. 20 of the Act, the revisional authority can interfere with the order of the appellate authority only if it is illegal or irregular or improper. In short, it is the legality, regularity and the propriety of the order of the appellate authority that are to be considered by the revisional authority, and not even the correctness of the decision as is under certain other jurisdictions and in other States like Tamil Nadu. He also submitted that there was no finding that the order of the appellate authority is illegal or irregular or improper. After appreciating the facts, the revisional authority only stated that the order of the Rent Control Court is more acceptable in this case than that of the appellate authority. Counsel submitted that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him properly. He also submitted that on the basis of the findings of fact made by the appellate authority, there is no justification at all for interfering with the order of the appellate authority.

(3.) Counsel for the lst respondent submitted that when there are conflicting decisions, the revisional Court has to look into the evidence and come to its own conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioner in this case is an agriculturist and the particulars of his income or the agricultural property have not been disclosed in the petition. The amount proposed to be invested in the stationery business was also not disclosed. The contention is that the petitioner wanted eviction only to dispose of the building after eviction. Therefore, it is submitted that the revisional authority has a duty to appreciate the evidence and to come to a conclusion as to which of the views, of the Rent Control Court or of the appellate authority, that is correct. That is all, according to counsel for the lst respondent, the revisional authority has done in this case. Even if a revisional authority made a mistake, it is submitted, so long as it is a possible view, this Court will not interfere with the order of the revisional authority under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the High Court is not appellate jurisdiction and that it is a very limited jurisdiction to see whether there is no evidence to support the reasoning of the revisional authority. If two views are possible and the revisional authority has taken one of the two views, the High Court should not interfere with the order of the revisional authority, is the contention of the first respondent.