K.A.ANTHAPPAI versus C. AHAMMED

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 05-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.A.ANTHAPPAI 
~ 
v. 
C.AHAMMED 
MAY 5, 1992 
B 
[T. K. THOMMEN AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965-Section 20 and 
)--
Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--R.evisional jurisdiction unde,-
Distinction--Revisional powers-Nature and scope of-Reassessment of 
c evidence by revisional court-Legality of. 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965-Sections 11(3), 
~
11(4)(ii)-Landlord's requirement for bonafide residence-Whether to be 
negatived on ground of building requires repairs/alterations. 
-\ ~ 
D 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965-Section 11(3)-
Whether tenant entitled to the benefit of second provis~Appreciation by 
Appellate Authority-Necessity of. 
_The appellant's father let out the disputed building wherein the 
tenant-respondent carried out the hotel business. _ 
E 
-4.... 
The appellant-landlord filed an eviction petition on 15.1.81 before 
' 
the Rent Controller stating that after his retireinent from service on 
30.9.1981, he wanted to settled down in that town and as he had no other 
house to reside, the disputed building was required by him bona fide for 
F 
his occupation; that the respondent-tenant was using the property in such 
a manner as to materially and permanently reduce its value, utility and 
purpose. 
The respondent contended that the building was not suitable for 
residential purposes; that the appellant had a house and pl~t in his wife's 
G name within the town; that there was a lot of vacant land on the back side 
of the qnanted building, which was suitable for house construction and 
that the property was not being used In such a way as to reduce Its utlllty. 
--"'""'\.... 
The trial court dll1ml_111ed the eviction petition or the landlord, hold· 
ln1 that 11 be failed In provln1 hl1 bona ftd1 need of the bulldln1, the 
H landlord wa1 not entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the 
70 
K.A ANTIIAPPAI v. C. AHAMMED 
71 
Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 and as the landlord A 
failed to prove that the tenant was using the building in such a way to 
destroy its value and utility, he was notentitled to an order under section 
11(4)(ii) or the Act. 
On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent 
Controller. 
B 
The High Court in revision set aside the order of the Appellate 
- -' 
Authority, against which the present appeal by special leave was filed 
before this Court by the landlord. 
On the question, whether the respondent was liable to be evicted C 
...-
on the ground of bona fide need ~f the appellant for his personal 
occupation under section 11 (3) of . the Act, this Court allowing the 
landlord's appeal, 
-
• .L 
HELD: 1.1. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under D 
section 20 is wider than that conferred under section 115 CPC. But at the 
same time, a revision under section 20 cannot be equated with an appeal. 
(75 CJ 
1.2. The revisional power conferred on the High Court is essentially 
a power of superintendence and des_pite the wide language employed, the E 
High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact of the subordinate 
authority merely because it does not agree with the said findings. (75 E] 
Dattonpant Gopalverao Devak_ate v. Vithabra_o Maruthirao Janagaval, 
(1975) Supp. SCR 67; M/s. Sri Raja Laks~mi Dyeing Works & Ors. v. 
Rangaswamy Chettiar, AIR 1980 SC 1253, followed . 
F 
...-4..... 
1.3. The revisional 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 on and supported the 
one reached be the court below. (75 F] 
G 
Rajbir v. S. Chokesiri & Co., (1986) 1SCC19 at p. 37, followed. 
2.1. The question whether the building is required bona fide by the 
appellant for his own residence is primarily one of fact and. the finding 
recorded by the Appellate Authority after considering the evidence on H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A record could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of the 
revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act because it could not be . 
said that t-.e said finding recorded by the Appellate Authority was not 
supported by the evidence on record. (77 EJ 
2.2. 1be fact that· the appellant has been living with his son in the 
B house belonging to him (son) cannot lead to the inference that the claim 
of the appellant that he wants to live in a house of hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.