LexADDISSERY RAGHAVAN versus CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R. ADDISSERY RAGHAVAN v. CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN (Civil Appeal Nos. 2528-29 of 2020) JUNE 08, 2020 [R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.] 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, [2020] 6 S.C.R. 438 438 A B C D E F G H 439 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-in- law’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. Case Law Reference [2003] 1 SCR 329 referred to Para 7 [2014] 14 SCR 1379 followed Para 9 [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 579 referred to Para 9 [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 239 relied on Para 9 ADDISSERY RAGHVAN v. CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN A B C D E F G H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 6 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2528- 29 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RCRev. No. 377 of 2016 and 378 of 2016. K. Rajeev, Abid Ali Beeran P, K.M. Firoz, Sarath Janardhan, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In the present case, the appellant is the tenant of two shop rooms – one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, each admeasuring 60 square feet. The tenant is doing t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.