KERALA SUGAR AGENCIES Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Sankaran Nair, J. as the learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision in Karthiyani v. Venkitachala Iyer, 1986 KLT 81. The ratio of the said decision is that a Revisional Authority under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for short " the Rent Control Act") has no power to collect evidence except for the limited purpose of enabling it to effectively exercise its revisional function.

(2.) FACTS of this case are simple. Petitioner is the tenant of a building which is on the ground floor of an edifice. Landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground that he needs the building for his own residential use. Rent Control Court upheld the ground and ordered eviction. But, appellate authority reversed the finding mainly for two reasons. First is that the building (which is used by the tenant as a godown) is a non-residential-one situate in a commercial area. Second is that the landlord has no bonafides in claiming it for his residential use since he did not occupy the first floor of the building which fell vacant in 1974, three years before institution of this proceeding. In revision District Judge issued a commission on the motion of the landlord to ascertain whether the first floor could have been used for residential purpose. Commission report in the District Court was marked as Ext. Clause Learned District Judge set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court holding that the landlord bonafide needs this building for his residential use Factors which considerably weighed with the District Judge are that the landlord has been residing in rented buildings and that the building involved in this case is the only building owned by him; and that only slight modifications or additions would be sufficient to make this building residentiable. District Judge found that there is uncontroverted evidence to show that first floor of the building as such could not be used for residential purpose.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to the reference order passed by Sankaran Nair, J. and before we heard arguments in this original petition, two other division benches of this Court have considered the decision in Karthiyani's case. In one of them (Anandan v. Soumini, 1991(1) KLT 53, Bhat, J. (as he then was) and Ramakrishnan, J. did not approve the ratio in Karthiyani's case. But the other Division Bench (Varghese Kalliath and Monoharan, JJ) in Gouthaman v. Lohithakshan, 1992(1) KLT 32, has affirmed the ratio laid down in Karthiyani's case. However, it has to be pointed out that the earlier Division Bench decision in Anandan's case was not referred to in the later decision (Gouthaman's case) presumably because the decision would not have been brought to the notice of their lordships in Gouthaman's case.