KADEERSHA Vs. VENKITASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlord. His application for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenants was allowed both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. But on revision, the learned District Judge, on a re-appreciation of the evidence reversed the decisions of the courts below.

(2.) THE 1st respondent is the tenant of the landlord-revision petitioner. Respondents 2 to S are persons to whom interest in the building by sub-lease is alleged to have been transferred by the 1st respondent. In respect of the 2nd respondent all the authorities held that there was no sub-lease;. It was is respect of respondents 3 to 5 that the Rent control Court as well as the Appellate Authority held that there was sub-lease.

(3.) IT is settled law that the jurisdiction of the revising Authority under S. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965, is not unlimited; he does not sit in appeal; his jurisdiction to interfere with finding of fact is limited to cases where the impugned order is perverse or arbitrary in the sense that, on the basis of the evidence on record, no reasonable tribunal would have come to such a decision; or, the decision was rendered on the basis of irrelevant consideration; or, that it was unsupported by any evidence whatever: Doraswami Chettiar v. Handammaden Kunhiraman, 1969 klj. 227. In my view, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and in reversing the finding of facts by the authorities below him.