Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – s.11(8),
20 – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Appellant was tenant of two shop rooms – Eviction petitions filed by respondent were decreed by trial court on his bonafide requirement of additional accommodation for business – Reversed by Rent Control Appellate Authority – Set aside by High Court – Held: Appellate Authority’s finding that some of the rooms in respondent’s occupation were lying vacant based on the Commissioner’s Report was not perverse and puts paid to any bonafide requirement of additional accommodation of the respondent – Similar finding based on Building Tax Assessment Register also could not have been interfered by High Court – Appellate Authority also rightly found that the appellant cannot be considered to be in possession of a room leased by his mother-in-law in another building only because he had her permission to store goods when necessary – Interfering with this finding of fact, without any perversity or misappreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority was outside High Court’s revisional jurisdiction – Equally, the finding of comparative hardship, a finding of fact not otherwise perverse could not have been upset in the manner as done by High Court – Judgment of High Court set aside while that of the Appellate Authority is restored. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the Appellate Authority relied upon the Commissioner’s Report stating that there are 36 rooms in the building and that the majority of the rooms are let out, showing that some of the rooms in the occupation of the landlord are lying vacant, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in this finding of fact. Even assuming that the High Court is correct in its construction of Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act, stating that vacant rooms in other buildings cannot be looked at, this finding of fact of the Appellate Authority puts paid to any bonafide requirement of additional accommodation of the landlord in the facts of the present case. The reliance upon the Building Tax Assessment Register by the Appellate Authority, showing that some of the rooms belonging to the landlord were lying vacant, again, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in the manner done by the High Court. Further, the finding that a room leased by the mother-in-law of the tenant in another building is not in tenant’s possession only because he had his mother-inlaw’s permission to store goods when necessary, and especially during festival occasions, on a temporary basis. Interfering with this finding of fact, again, without any perversity or misappreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority would clearly be outside the High Court’s ken in its revisional jurisdiction. Equally, the finding of comparative hardship, which is a finding of fact not otherwise found to be perverse, cannot be upset in the manner done by the High Court. [Paras 10, 11][450-D-H; 451-A]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 : [2014] 14 SCR 1379 – followed. Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander (1988) 3 SCC 131 : [1988]
1 Suppl. SCR 239 – relied on.
Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram
Ramgopal Mundada (2003) 2 SCC 320 : [2003] 1 SCR 329; Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 499 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 579 – referred to.
Piper v. Harvey (1958) 1 All ER 454 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.