RAGHAVAN Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a rent control petition for eviction is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur passed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent landlord filed the application seeking to evict the petitioner tenant from the petitioner schedule building under S.11(2)(b) and S.11(3) of the Act The Rent Control Court has refused eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and thus, disallowed eviction under S.11(2)(b). However, the eviction was ordered on me ground of bona fide requirement under S.11(3) of the Act. As against the order of the Rent Control Court the tenant filed appeal under S.18 of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order of the Rent Control Court under S.11(2)(b) has become final. Therefore, the substantial ground available for eviction before the Appellate Authority was under S.11(3). The Appellate Authority, after evaluating the evidence, agreed with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(3). Hence the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) Before examining the correctness of the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we should remind ourselves of the power conferred on us under S.20 of the Act. The power conferred under the above provision is to call for and examine the records relating to the impugned order for the purpose of satisfying ourselves as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order. What does it mean Can we make a re - appraisal of evidence for the purpose of recording an independent finding No. We cannot do it. What we can do is to have a reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of testing whether the impugned order is not vitiated by anyone of the vices stated in S.20 of the Act; that is to say, whether the order is vitiated for the reason of illegality, irregularity or impropriety. In this context, before further examining the scope of this provision, it must be worth while to note the observation of the Supreme Court in K.S. Sudararaju Chettiar v. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu, 1994 (5) SCC 14 :

(3.) The revisional authority exercising power under S.20 cannot substitute its conclusions when the conclusions of the appellate authority are reasonable, even if another conclusion is also possible. The Supreme Court in K.A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed ( 1992 (2) KLJ 376 ) observed that the power conferred on the High Court is essentially a power of superintendence and despite the wide language employed, the High Court should not interfere with the findings of the fact of the subordinate authority merely because it does not agree with the said findings. The Supreme Court in a similar rent control case further observed in Rajbir v. S. Chokesiri & Co. ( 1989 (1) SCC 19 ) that the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the court below.