Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 188 (KER)

P. P. Joseph v. A. M. Thomas

1995-06-15

M.M.PAREED PILLAY, T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN

body1995
ORDER M.M. Pareed Pillay, C.J. 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent landlord filed petition under S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for additional accommodation for his personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition mainly holding that one of the rooms in the ground floor of the residential building can be used as respondent's separate office. Respondent filed appeals before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. Nos. 102 of 1992 and 119 of 1992. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. The eviction was granted in favour of the respondent under S.11(8) of the Act. 2. The Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence held in para 8 of the order that the landlord is having considerable activities which require office space of reasonable magnitude. Despite the said finding, the Rent Controller held that the landlord has failed to prove the bona fides of his claim and the requirement of additional accommodation. The Appellate Authority considered the rival contentions of the parties elaborately and concluded that the landlord has established his case for additional accommodation. 3. Landlord examined as P.W.1 deposed about the need for additional accommodation. P.W. 1 was a member of the Director Board of the Federal Bank during 1990-91. This is after filing of the rent control petition. Ext.A-12 shows that P.W.1 was a member of the Executive Committee of the Gandhi Peace Foundation Centre. P.W. 1's evidence shows that he was a member of the State Executive Committee of the Kerala Prohibition Council having its office at Cochin. His evidence discloses the fact that after his retirement from the Union Ministry and from active politics he is still associated with the activities of very many religious and social organisations and Government agencies. The Appellate Authority found no reason to discard P.W.1's evidence. The evidence in the case shows that P.W.1 would require space for accommodating at least one clerk and a stenographer and for that purpose possession of the scheduled premises is absolutely necessary. Despite the cross examination at length, nothing has been brought out to discredit his testimony. 4. Contention of the revision petitioner is that a portion of the drawing room can be used as office and so additional accommodation sought is without any justification. Despite the cross examination at length, nothing has been brought out to discredit his testimony. 4. Contention of the revision petitioner is that a portion of the drawing room can be used as office and so additional accommodation sought is without any justification. In view of the evidence on the side of the respondent that he has a large family and also in view of the fact that conversion of the drawing room would not be suitable to meet his requirements it has to be necessarily held that the Appellate Authority was justified in granting eviction under S.11(8) of the Act. 5. Scope of revision under S.20 of the Act by this Court is rather limited. Though it is wider than the revisional jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C., it can never be equated with appellate powers. S.20 of the Act in categoric terms enables the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act by the subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and pass order as it thinks fit. From a reading of S.20 it can be certainly discerned that the power of the High Court is the power of superintendence. Though S.20 enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of any order of the subordinate authority, it does not mean that this Court cannot interfere on findings of fact in deserving cases. As observed by the Supreme Court in Anthappai v. Ahammed (1992) (2) KLT 284 (SC) the High 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. As the Rent Controller himself held that the landlord is having considerable activities requiring office space of reasonable magnitude, conclusion of the Appellate Authority giving due importance to the evidence in the case cannot be brushed aside. So long as it has not been established that the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, this Court cannot interfere with it. So long as it has not been established that the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, this Court cannot interfere with it. In other words, this Court by a reappraisal and reassessment of the evidence cannot come to its own conclusion and supplant its findings to that of the Appellate Authority. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Madhavan v. Leelamma ( 1991 (2) KLT 32 ) held that though revisional Court has got the power to examine the evidence it cannot go on a re-appraisal of the evidence for the purpose of recording an independent finding. The Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma v. Kallyani Sulochana ( AIR 1993 SC 1616 ) held that the wider language of S.20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal and the High Court is not justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence. Construing the word "propriety" in S.20 the Supreme Court held that it cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court further held that the revisional Court can come to a different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence, but by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it. As the legal position is that the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of evidence and supplant a conclusion of its own so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the one reached by the Court below, we hold that power of revision under. S.20 cannot be equated with appellate powers. 7. In order to make out a case for intervention even in exercise of the limited jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that it is a case where there is total lack of evidence in support of the case of the respondent that no space is available in the building occupied by him to be used as an office. It was pointed out that the respondent has not even spoken to such a case while examined as P.W.1 in the case. It was pointed out that the respondent has not even spoken to such a case while examined as P.W.1 in the case. In this connection it was also pointed out that the respondent has not even supplied the particulars regarding the present accommodation required to be stated in the petition as per R.12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules such as ground area, etc., so as to take a decision regarding the insufficiency of the accommodation alleged as a ground for eviction. It was submitted that in the absence of such details in the petition as part of the pleadings and reliable evidence to establish the lack of accommodation alleged, the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are liable to be interfered with in this revision. 8. As regards the absence of required particulars, it has to be pointed out that the revision petitioner has not raised a specific objection in that regard either before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority. As such the revision petitioner is not justified in raising such an objection in this revision for the first time. In the light of the testimony of P.W.1 it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that it is a case where there is total absence of evidence in support of the case pleaded in the petition. Though not in so many words, the petitioner has spoken to in particular about certain allegations in the petition and generally in regard to all the allegations made by him as P.W.1. The evidence thus given by the respondent should be treated as evidence in regard to all the allegations in the petition. In the concluding part of his examination in chief he has stated that all the allegations in the petition are true and correct. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respondent as a whole was considered by the appellate authority and has been found to be sufficient to establish the ground for eviction alleged in the petition. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the above contention. The civil revision petitions are devoid of merit. Both the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs.