SUVIL T.T. Vs. KAVARAN KUNIYIL NABEESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned revision petitions are filed against the concurrent findings in Rent Control Petitions filed under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act' only). There are altogether 23 rooms in the tenanted building and they are being occupied by 13 different tenants. In such circumstances, 13 rent control petitions viz., RCP Nos.92/14,93/14,94/14,95/14,96/14,97/14,98/14, 99/14, 100/14, 101/14, 102/14,103/14 and 104/14 are filed by the common respondent herein seeking eviction of the 13 different tenants under Section 11(3) of the Act, citing the bona fide need to start wholesale and retail business in furniture in the entire building. Before the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, the respondent herein was examined as R.C.R.Nos. 50 of 2018 and connect.cases PW1 and on her side, Exts.A1 to A14 were got marked. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent, though on their side, three tenants were examined respectively as RW1 to RW3. Exts.C1 to C13 were got marked as court exhibits. Virtually, they are the commission reports in respect of the tenanted shop rooms. On evaluating the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent herein/landlady had succeeded in establishing the bona fide need projected by her in the Rent Control Petition. Though the tenants attempted to establish that they are entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court found that they could not establish the twin conditions to be satisfied to earn eligibility to get the benefit thereunder. Consequently, the order of eviction was passed in all the Rent Control Petitions. Feeling aggrieved by the common orders passed by the Rent Control Court in the said Rent Control Petitions, the respective tenants preferred the appeals R.C.A.Nos.135/16,136/16,137/16,138/16,139/16,140/16,141/16,142/16,143/16,144/16 and 152/16 respectively before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara against the orders in RCP Nos.92/14,93/14, 95/14,97/14,99/14,100/14,101/14,102/14,103/14,104/14 and 96/14 respectively. The Rent Control Appellate Authority as per the impugned judgments, repelled the contentions of the tenants and dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. It is in the said circumstances that the captioned revision petitions are filed. In fact, RCR Nos.50/18,52/18,53/18,54/18,55/18,56/18,57/18,58/18 and 59/18 are filed against the common judgment in RCA Nos.143/16,141/16,137/16,144/16,142/16,152/16,139/16,136/16 and 135/16 respectively. In the circumstances, all these revision petitions are heard jointly and they are being disposed of, by this common order.

(2.) Before adverting to the common contentions raised by the revision petitioners, we think it only apropos to refer to the constitutional Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [2014(4) KLT 182 ]. In fact, the Apex Court, while dealing with the provision for revision under the Rent Control Acts of the State of Tamil Nadu, Hariyana and the State of Kerala, held as follows:-

(3.) In the light of the exposition of law by the Honourable Apex Court, in the matter of exercise of revisional powers in respect of the concurrent findings on facts, it is evident that there would only be very limited scope for reconsideration of all questions of fact by the revisional court and the consideration is to be confined to satisfy whether the decision is according to law, that is to satisfy to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order. If the finding is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence, or such finding is based on no evidence or is an outcome of misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be open for correction in exercise of the revisional power, going by the decision. In such circumstances, bearing in mind the enunciation of law as above by the Apex Court, we will consider the question whether the concurrent findings rendered by the authorities below under Section 11(3) of the Act, in favour of the respondent/landlady in the cases on hand invite interference.