UMMER Vs. UMMU HABEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent findings in a rent control petition filed under Sec. 11(3) of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (herein after referred as "the Act" only), is under challenge in this revision petition, preferred by the respondent-tenant. The respondent herein, the petitioner in R.C.P No. 18/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tirur, who is the landlady filed the same citing the ground of bonafide need to start a wholesale medical distribution shop for her jobless husband. It was further pleaded therein that her husband was working in medical distribution field and presently, he is depending on her and she is ready to give him necessary financial assistance as well, for setting up the said business. Before the Rent Control Court, on the side of the petitioner/the respondent herein, she was examined as PW1 besides getting marked Exts. A1 to A4. On the side of the revision petitioner/the respondent therein, his Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Salim. M was examined as RW1. No documentary evidence was adduced on his side. Ext.C1 is the commissioners report dtd. 22/1/2016 and Ext.C2 is the sketch appended therein. After evaluating the evidence on record and considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Sec. 11(3) of the Act and directed the revision petitioner to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule room within the time stipulated thereunder. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner herein took up the matter in appeal as R.C.A. No. 22/2016. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, as per the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court. It is in the said circumstances, that the captioned revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned Counsel for Caveator.

(3.) The tenancy is not in dispute. Evidently, the revision petitioner disputed the bonafide need raised by the respondent herein. However, on evaluating the evidence on record, including the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court arrived at a conclusion that the bonafide need manifested in actual need and the petitioner had succeeded in establishing the same and the said findings got confirmance in the impugned appellate order. As noticed herein before, the bonafide need projected in the petition is that the petitioner's jobless husband, who was earlier working in the field of medical distribution intends to start a business of his own in the field of medical distribution and for setting up the same, petition schedule room is required. Evidently, this requirement was found genuine and there is concurrent finding on the issue of bonafide need under Sec. 11(3) of the Act. Before adverting to the contentions, we ween that it is only worthwhile to refer to a Constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in 2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC) It was held therein that a finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence, or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, are circumstances where the revisional court could exercise its jurisdiction. This is because in such circumstances it would not be treated as a finding in accordance with law. In the light of Hindustan Petroleum's case (supra), it is evident that there is only a little scope for interference with a concurrent finding or facts in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the question is whether the revision petitioner has made out any such ground or grounds for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction, in the case on hand?