JAYANTHI AMRITLAL Vs. POPATLAL MULJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Act) arises from the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in R. C. P. No. 50 of 1987 under S.11(4)(v) of the Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner and fifth respondent are the tenants of the building sought to be evicted. Respondents 1 to 4 are the landlords. Their predecessor - in - interest filed the application for eviction alleging that the tenants ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The fifth respondent did not appear before the Rent Controller and she remained ex - parte throughout. The revision petitioner alone contested the case. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence available in the case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants have ceased to occupy the building in question continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause. The order of eviction was accordingly passed under S.11(4)(v). In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner under S.18 of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority independently examined the entire evidence on record and came to the same conclusion. Thus we have before us a concurrent finding of fact namely, the tenants have ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without any reasonable cause. Of coarse this finding is attacked by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner while marshalling his arguments. It is not the function of this court under S.20 of the Act to examine the evidence on record once again and come to a different conclusion on re-appreciation of evidence. The revisional court must be reluctant to embark upon independent reassessment of the evidence and supplant a conclusion of its own so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the courts below. (See : K. A. Anthappai v. C. Ahamed ( 1992 (2) KLJ 376 SC) A different conclusion can be had only by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. (See : Rugmini Amma Saradamma v. Kalyani Sulochana (1993 AIR 1993 SC 1616 ), After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

(3.) Learned counsel made as attempt to argue that the tenants are entitled to the benefits under sub-s.(17) of Section H of the Act. The said provision is attracted only in a case where the tenant is sought to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or of the occupation of any member of Ms family dependent on Mm. In ether words the protection under this sub-section is available to a tenant who, is sought to be evicted under S.11(3). What is contained in sub-s.(17) is only an retype of the same words in S.11(3) of the Act. That being se, in a case where eviction is sought under S.11(4)(v), the provision contained in sub-s.(17) of S.11 of the Act is not attracted. The contention of the learned counsel therefore fans.