RAMACHANDRAN Vs. PARUKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the tenants. The landlady filed a petition for eviction under S.11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition on all other grounds except S.11(2) of the Act. The tenants as well as the landlady filed appeals. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the tenants and allowed the appeal filed by the landlady in respect of the ground under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act. Now, S.11(2) of the Act and other grounds under S.11(3) and 11(4)(ii) are not alive. Tenants are aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority granting eviction under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act and they have filed this revision. S.11(4)(iii) of the Act reads thus:

(2.) In order to attract S.11(4)(iii) of the Act, the landlady has to establish that the tenants had in their possession a building at the time of filing the petition or subsequently acquired possession of or put up a building, reasonably sufficient for their requirements in the same city, town or village. Admittedly, at the time of filing the application for eviction, the tenants had a building owned by them. There is no serious dispute as to the further fact that the building they were owned was reasonably sufficient for their requirements. The only dispute is that at the time when the petition was filed whether the tenants who owned the building had possession of the building.

(3.) This aspect of the matter was considered by the appellate court in great detail. Admittedly, the tenants purchased a building in April, 1979. The relevant document is Ext. A10. According to the tenants, at the time when they purchased the building, a tenant was occupying that building and so they had not actual physical possession of the building. This aspect of the matter was considered by the court below and finally the court found that the case pleaded by the tenants that they had no physical possession at the time when the petition was filed was incorrect. The appellate court found that the tenants had a building owned by them and possessed by them at the time when the petition was filed. This is a finding of fact. This finding of fact of course if found to be an improper finding of fact or illegal finding of fact or the finding is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity, certainly we can interfere. But from the facts discussed by the appellate court, we are convinced that the finding is proper, legal and regular.