ANIL @ APPU, Vs. THAMPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned revision petition is filed on being aggrieved by the concurrent findings on a Rent Control Petition filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act' only). The revision petitioner herein was the respondent in RCP No.38/2011 filed by the respondent herein-the landlord seeking ejectment of the former from the petitions schedule room under the aforesaid sections. The said Rent Control Petition was allowed and the revision petitioner herein was directed to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted shop room as per order dated 07.10.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the same he preferred RCA No.11/2017. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court as per judgment dated 01.12.2017. It is, in the said circumstances, that the captioned revision petition has been filed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Obviously, there is no dispute regarding the tenancy. The revision petitioner herein, the tenant is conducting a fruits and juice shop in tenanted room. The respondent herein-the landlord filed the Rent Control Petition on the ground of his bonafide need for the purpose of starting an automobile and spare parts shop for his son under Section 11(3) of the Act and also on the ground of arrears of rent. Before the Rent Control Court, the landlord was examined as PW1 and his son for whose purpose the tenant was sought to be evicted, was examined as PW2. On the side of the revision petitioner/the tenant he was examined as RW1. On the side of the landlord, the respondent herein Exts.A1 to A4 were got marked and no documentary evidence was produced by the revision petitioner/the tenant. It is essentially on evaluation of the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions that the Rent Control Court allowed the petition and order of eviction was passed both under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore the said order passed by the Rent Control Court was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority as per the impugned judgment.

(3.) The facts stated above would reveal that there is concurrent finding by the court below both under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it is only worthwhile to consider the scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The said issue was elaborately considered by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC)]. The permissible ground upon which such concurrent finding could be interfered with by High Courts in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been specifically mentioned thereunder. To entertain a revision in such circumstances such a finding the court/authority below must have passed the order/judgment on a misreading of the evidence on records or against the weight of evidence and such other grounds specified therein. Merely because another view is also possible on the evidence on record the power under Section 20 of the Act could not be exercised. In the light of the decision we will have to consider whether any such interference is called for, at the instance of the revision petitioner/the tenant.