ABUBACKER KEYI Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case filed R. C. O. P. No. 8 of 1962 before the second respondent for evicting the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent had sublet a portion of the building to the Marine Section of the Government of Kerala without the consent of the petitioner. The first respondent admitted the subletting, but raised the contention that he had sublet the portion of the building with the consent of the petitioner. The second respondent after considering the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the first respondent sublet a portion of the building without the consent of the landlord and in violation of the terms of the kychit, marked Ext. A1. Ext. P. 2 is a copy of that order. The first respondent thereupon filed an appeal before the appellate authority, the third respondent, and the third respondent by his order confirmed the decision of the second respondent. Both the second and the third respondents disbelieved the evidence adduced on behalf of the first respondent and found that the first respondent had sublet a portion of the building without the consent of the petitioner. The first respondent thereupon filed a revision before the District Judge, the fourth respondent, and the fourth respondent set aside the concurrent findings of the second and the third respondents and allowed the revision.

(2.) Mr. V. Rama Shenoi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the revisional authority went wrong in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The two witnesses examined the first respondent to show that he had sublet part of the godown with the consent of the petitioner are R. Ws. 1 and 2. Both these witnesses were disbelieved and that was the reason why both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held that the first respondent had sublet the building without the consent of the landlord, the petitioner. It was the case of the first respondent that Port Conservator was present at the time when the petitioner is alleged to have given ' his consent for subletting the building. The non examination of the Port Conservator was relied on as a circumstance by both the second and third respondents for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner's case was true. The revisional authority on an evaluation of the evidence of these witnesses found that there was no reason for disbelieving their testimony. R. W. 2 has sworn that it was he who went and met the landlord at the instance of the first respondent and that he was present when the landlord gave his consent to the subletting. R. W. 3 is a dealer in indigenous medicines and he also swears that he was present when the landlord gave his consent. The revisional authority thought that there was no reason to disbelieve them as there was nothing in their cross examination to doubt their veracity. I am not satisfied that this is really the function of the revisional authority. When a witness has been disbelieved by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority there must be overwhelming reasons for the revisional authority to believe his evidence. There is another circumstance which weighed with the Rent Controller and the appellate authority for coming to the conclusion that the landlord has not given the consent. The one respectable witness who would have thrown light on this question was the Port Conservator who, it is alleged, was present at the time when the consent was given. His non examination by the first respondent was strong reason which induced the Rent Controller and the appellate authority to hold against the first respondent. I am therefore of the view that the learned District Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in relying upon the evidence of witnesses who were disbelieved by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority for valid reasons. Mr. Rama Shenoi submitted on the strength of the rulings reported in AIR 1951 SC 120 and AIR 1949 PC 32 that even an appellate court would not normally interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as regards the credibility of witnesses. I am satisfied that the revisional authority went beyond its jurisdiction under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act in reappreciating the evidence of witnesses who have been disbelieved for valid reasons by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. I therefore quash the order of the revisional authority.