Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1960 DIGILAW 309 (KER)

Ramankutty v. Ittiachan

1960-08-04

C.A.VAIDIALINGAM

body1960
Judgment :- 1. Respondent No.1 before the Rent Controller, namely, the tenant, is the petitioner before me. 2. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the first respondent from the premises on two grounds, namely, (1) that the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own occupation and (2) that the tenant, the first respondent, has sub-let the premises to respondents 2 and 3 before the Bent Controller. 3. The plea set up by the tenant, namely, the first respondent, was that respondents 2 and 3 are only his servants and that the coffee hotel that is being run in the premises belongs to the first respondent himself. So far as the question of bona fide claim by the landlord, that again was challenged by the first respondent. 4. It is seen that respondents 2 and 3 do not appear to have taken any part in these proceedings. 5. The question of the landlord requiring the premises for bona fide occupation is now concluded against the landlord by the concurrent findings of the Bent Controller, the Appellate Authority and also of the learned District Judge. 6. But so far as the question of sub-letting is concerned, the Bent Controller and also the Appellate Authority have accepted the case of the tenant, the first respondent, that there has been no sub-letting as alleged by the landlord and on this ground the Bent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord and this has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority also. 7. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord took up the matter in revision before the learned District Judge of Trichur under the provisions of S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Bent) Control Act, 1959, namely Act XVI of 1959. The learned District Judge, after a consideration of the materials on record has not chosen to accept the finding of the subordinate authorities so far as the question of sub-letting is concerned. As mentioned by me earlier, the learned District Judge has confirmed the finding of the Bent Controller and the Appellate Authority negativing the right of the landlord to get possession of the building on the ground of his bona fide requiring it for his own occupation. 8. As mentioned by me earlier, the learned District Judge has confirmed the finding of the Bent Controller and the Appellate Authority negativing the right of the landlord to get possession of the building on the ground of his bona fide requiring it for his own occupation. 8. According to the learned District Judge, some vital pieces of evidence on record have not been properly adverted to by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority & that proper inferences which necessarily follow from a consideration of the evidence have not been drawn by the two authorities. Therefore, the learned District Judge after a consideration of the entire evidence has differed from the conclusions arrived at by the Bent Controller and the Appellate Authority and has come to the conclusion that there has been a sub-letting as alleged by the landlord and as such has directed the eviction of the first respondent tenant from the premises. 9. It is this order of the learned District Judge that is rather very strenuously challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner. 10. Before I go into the merits of the contentions of the learned counsel, I may also refer to a preliminary objection raised by Mr. T. S. Venkateswara Iyer, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent that no revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to this Court against the order passed in revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, Act XVI of 1959. This preliminary objection need not detain me any longer because jurisdiction has been given to the District Court under S.20 and there cannot be a dispute that the District Court is a subordinate court and the orders passed by that court are liable to be revised in appropriate cases by virtue of the powers vested in this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil 'Procedure. Even otherwise, there are numerous authorities of the Madras High Court that the High Court has got the right to entertain a revision under S.115 C.P.C. against orders passed by revisional authority under the corresponding provisions of the Madras Act. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled. 11. Mr. Even otherwise, there are numerous authorities of the Madras High Court that the High Court has got the right to entertain a revision under S.115 C.P.C. against orders passed by revisional authority under the corresponding provisions of the Madras Act. Therefore, the preliminary objection is overruled. 11. Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer contended that the powers of revision conferred on a District Judge under S.20 of Kerala Act XVI of 1959 are very limited and that the learned District Judge in this case has not kept in view the limitations of his jurisdiction clearly prescribed by virtue of the express terms contained in S.20 of the Act. If I understand the learned counsel rightly, his contention is that in this case the learned District Judge has practically substituted his view and conclusions on an appreciation of the entire evidence by himself and this, according to Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, is not justified by the provisions of S.20 of the Act. 12. At any rate, so far as this particular case is concerned, I am satisfied that there is no scope for interference under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Though Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer referred me to certain decisions of the Madras and Kerala High Courts regarding the exact connotation of the expression "lagality, regularity and propriety" occurring in analogus statutes, I am not adverting to those decisions because of the latest decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan (A.I.R.1960 Supreme Court 655). 14. Their Lordships had to deal with a somewhat analogus provision contained in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) and the powers of revision vested in the High Court under S.15 (5) of the Act referred to above. In spite of the fact that concurrent decisions had been given by the two subordinate authorities, the High Court in that case appears to have interfered with those findings and recorded a finding different from those of the Subordinate Authorities. One ground of attack made before the Supreme Court appears to have been that the High Court was in error in coming to its own conclusion contrary to the findings recorded by the subordinate tribunals. This aspect of the matter has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court at page 658 of the reports. 15. One ground of attack made before the Supreme Court appears to have been that the High Court was in error in coming to its own conclusion contrary to the findings recorded by the subordinate tribunals. This aspect of the matter has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court at page 658 of the reports. 15. Their Lordships repelled this contention and observed as follows: "The revisional power conferred upon the High Court under S.15 (5) is wider than that conferred by S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under S.15 (5) the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly justify the examination of the propriety or the legality of the finding made by the authorities in the present case about the requirement of the landlord under S.13 (3) a (iii)". 16. In my view, this decision of the Supreme Court gives jurisdiction to the District Court, in circumstances very similar to this under which the High Court acted in that case to consider and examine the propriety or legality of the finding made by the subordinate authorities in that case regarding the allegation of the landlord that there has been a sub-letting by the tenant, the first respondent, before the Rent Controller. 17. In this case, both the subordinate authorities, according to the learned District Judge, have merely referred to some vital pieces of evidence on record but have not given either due consideration to those material pieces of evidence nor have they drawn the proper inference to be deduced from these facts. It is also seen that the learned judge is of the view that certain pieces of oral evidence let in by the landlord have also been brushed aside without any consideration saying that that evidence cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the learned District Judge has considered the entire evidence and has come to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the two subordinate authorities cannot be sustained on the evidence on record. 18. Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer contended that it cannot be stated in this case that there is no legal evidence for the two subordinate authorities coming to a conclusion in a particular way. After all, what the learned District Judge has done is to consider the entire evidence afresh and draw his own conclusions. 18. Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer contended that it cannot be stated in this case that there is no legal evidence for the two subordinate authorities coming to a conclusion in a particular way. After all, what the learned District Judge has done is to consider the entire evidence afresh and draw his own conclusions. That is not justified by the provisions of S.20 of the Act. 19. It is not possible for me to accept this large contention of Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, at any rate in the circumstances and on the facts of this case. As to whether the District Judge has exercised his powers properly on the clear terms of S.20 will have to be considered from the circumstances of each case. The parties were at controversy as to whether the landlord's allegation that there has been a sub-letting of the premises by the first respondent tenant is true or not. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, there is a very material piece of evidence which will conclude the case against the tenant, viz., the tenant's non-production of account books which he was admittedly having and which according to him will show that respondents 2 and 3 were only his servants; the application filed by the third respondent to the Postal authorities for the issue of licence for having a radio in the premises and wherein he has described himself as the proprietor of the coffee hotel which is found to be run in these premises; and the presence of a radio in the coffee hotel about which the tenant could not give any satisfactory explanation. I cannot say certainly that the learned District Judge in coming to a different conclusion especially after adverting to some of these very material circumstances against the petitioner has acted beyond his powers which is not justified in the circumstances of this case. 20. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs of the petitioner-respondent.