Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: s.20 – Revision – The predecessor of the respondents was conducting the management of the theatre on the piece of land owned by his fatherin-law – On the death of father-in-law (original owner), son of original owner (pre-decessor of the appellants) raised a claim that he was entitled to the rights and interest in the said theatre by virtue of a will executed by his father – Predecessor of the respondents initiated proceedings before Land Tribunal on the ground that he was cultivating tenant and as such entitled to protection under Kerala Land Reform Act, 1963 which ground was rejected and it was held that the rent property belonged to the son of the original owner – In 1982, pre-decessor of the respondents died and respondents succeeded to his interest – In 2009, appellant filed eviction suit against respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent – Rent Control Court allowed eviction petition relying upon the order passed by Land Tribunal – Appellate authority upheld the order of Rent Control Court – Respondents filed revision before High Court under s.20 of Rent Control Act, 1965 – High Court allowed the revision petition holding that there was no material to arrive at a finding that there was any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties – On appeal, held: It is a matter of record that in proceedings initiated before the Land Tribunal, predecessor of the respondents had taken plea that he was a tenant in respect of the suit property – While rejecting the said plea, the Land Tribunal had relied upon the accounts maintained by original owner in his own hand-writing which showed that his son-in-law was only a manager – Revisional Court cannot have jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority – The findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way – High Court could not have reappreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction – Impugned order is set aside and decree of eviction is restored – Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Rent Control and Eviction – Jurisdiction – Revision. Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others (1993) 1 SCC 499 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 579 ; Ubaiba v. Damodaran (1999) 5 SCC 645 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014)
9 SCC 78 ; Kalyani Sulochana v. Saradamma (1991) SCC OnLine Ker 213 : (1991) 2 KLJ 105 - relied on.
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.