JOSEPH Vs. K.V. JOHN @ JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant in a rent control petition filed under sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') filed the captioned revision petitions challenging the judgment of the appellate authority in R.C.A.Nos.8/2016 and 3/2016. The said appeals arose from R.C.P.No.48/2015. The said petition was filed by the respondent herein. Hereafter, in this order, the revision petitioner is described as tenant and the respondent herein is described as the landlord unless otherwise specifically mentioned. In the petition, it is averred that he is the owner of petition schedule building No.66/4785 situated on the southern side of Banerji Road having a total carpet area of 260 sq.ft. In the said shop room, the tenant is conducting a shop by name "Royal Plastics" which is a registered SSI unit. The bona fide need projected by the respondent herein/the petitioner therein under section 11(3) of the Act for occupation of the tenanted shop room is that it is required for starting a consultancy business with the aid of internet for his younger son, Reju John. It is also averred therein that the tenant subsequently acquired a building which is reasonably sufficient for his requirements and the said building lies in the same locality. Before the Rent Control Court, Reju John, the son of the petitioner holding the power of attorney of the landlord and for whose occupation ejectment of the tenant was sought for, was examined as PW1. On the side of the landlord, Exts.A1 to A8 were got marked. On the side of the tenant, his power of attorney was examined as RW1. Later, evidence on the side of the tenant was re-opened and the Advocate Commissioner and the tenant himself was examined as RW2 and RW3. On the side of the tenant, Exts.B1 to B6 series were also got marked. Ext.C1 is the Commissioner's report. After evaluation of the evidence on record and appreciation of the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court allowed the application under section 11(3) of the Act, but rejected the claim for eviction under section 11(4)(iii). Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court, tenant preferred R.C.A.No.3/2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlord, whose petition was dismissed under section 11(4)(iii) of the Act preferred R.C.A.No.8/2016 challenging the rejection of his petition thereunder. A common judgment was passed by the appellate authority in R.C.A.Nos.3/2016 and 8/2016. The appeal preferred by the tenant challenging the findings of the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord under section 11(3) was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the landlord challenging the dismissal of the rent control petition under section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was allowed as per the common judgment. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned revision petitions have been filed by the tenant. The former revision petition is directed against the judgment of the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.8/2016 and the latter revision petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.3/2016.

(2.) We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. Evidently, there is concurrent findings under section 11(3) of the Act whereas there is divergent findings under section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the bona fide need projected in the rent control petition is that the younger son of the landlord who was working as Lead Analyst in Knowleo Business Solution Pvt. Ltd. in Kochi and got 15 years experience in consultancy, wants to start a consultancy office in Ernakulam. There is no other building in possession of the landlord to provide for the said purpose. In short, it is for the purpose of starting consultancy with the aid of internet for the younger son, the landlord sought for ejectment of the tenant under section 11(3) of the Act. Though a feeble attempt was made by the tenant to dispute the ownership of the landlord over the building in question, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord had successfully established the title over the petition schedule shop room. The said finding is essentially one of fact and that there is concurrent finding on that question inasmuch as it was upheld by the appellate authority. No ground has been set forth in the revision petition at least to suggest that the said finding on facts is one arrived at by the authorities below sans any evidence or that the said finding is based on a misreading or utter perverse appreciation, of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the finding of the authorities below that the respondent herein is the owner of the petition schedule shop room and further that the jural relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner is that of landlord and tenant. That apart, we do not know how the tenant could dispute the title of the landlord in view of the provisions under section 116 of the Evidence Act. Any way, no ground has been made out to interfere with such concurrent finding on facts.

(3.) The next question to be considered is whether the concurrent finding of the authorities below to the effect that the landlord had succeeded in establishing the bona fide need projected in the rent control petition invites interference. Before dealing with the said question, it is only apropos to refer to the Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh 2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC) . Paragraph 45 of the said decision is worthy to be extracted and it reads thus:-