SUNDERDAS TATHENSEY Vs. RENT CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian partnership Act. A building with assessment No. VI/5 (Old No. XI/14) of Cochin Corporation belonging to the petitioner was leased out to the 4th respondent as per a rent deed dated 16th June 1963 and supplementary deed dated 31st December 1964. The petitioner filed an application for eviction of the 4th respondent before the Rent Controller Cochin, under S.11(2), 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(III) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Ext. P-3 is the said petition. The allegation was that there was arrears of rent and that the petitioner bona fide required the building for his own additional accommodation. -It was also alleged that the tenant had a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement to carry on business in his possession. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that none of the grounds stated for eviction was made out. Ext. P-5 is the order of the Rent Controller. On appeal, the appellate authority found that the tenant has a building in his possession which is reasonably sufficient for the requirement of the tenant. In that view of the matter the appellate authority ordered eviction under S.11(4)(III) of the Act. Ext. P-6 is the order of the appellate authority. The matter was taken in revision before the District Court. The learned District. Judge reversed the finding of the appellate authority on the question of applicability of S.11(4)(III) restored the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ' petition for eviction. Ext, P-7 is the said order.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed C.R.P. No. 2939/78 before this Court. This Court by Ext. P-8 order held that the revisional authority had exceeded his jurisdiction, that the order of the appellate authority is supported by legal evidence and that the revisional authority acted illegally in interfering with the order of the appellate authority. In that view this court restored the order of the appellate authority. The matter was further taken to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 626/81. The Supreme Court did not go into the merits but allowed the appeal following its decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai 1987 (1) SCC 183 . where the Supreme Court held that no further revision under S.115 C.P.C. would lie against the order passed by the District Judge in revision under S.20 of the Act. It is in those circumstances the petitioner filed this Original Petition challenging Ext. P-7 order passed by the District Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the revisional authority has far exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel invited my attention to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in K. A. Anthapai v. C. Ahammed 1992 (3) SCC 277 = 1992 (2) KLT 284 . Dealing with the question of revisional powers under S.20 the Supreme Court observed as follows: