THANKAMONY AMMA & ORS. versus OMANA AMMA N. & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 13-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
THANKAMONY AMMA & ORS.
v.
OMANA AMMA N. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6147 of 2019)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
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 father-
in-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
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 125
125
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
said to be perverse in any way – High Court could not have re-
appreciated 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.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 579
relied on.
Para 10
(1999) 5 SCC 645
relied on.
Para 11
(2014) 9 SCC 78
relied on.
Para 12
(1991) 2 KLJ 105
relied on.
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6147
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2018 by the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.C.R. No. 172 of 2017.
Kaleeswaram Raj, Ms. Maitreyi S. Hegde, Romsha Raj, Nishe
Rajen Shonker, Advs. for the Appellants.
P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Karthik Jayashankar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
09.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in RCR No.172 of 2017.
2. One Sankara Kurup, owner of a piece of land admeasuring 27
cents erected a Theatre named “Manorama Theatre” thereon (“suit
Property”, for short).  The management of the Theatre was being
conducted by his son-in-law named Kumara Kurup (predecessor of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
respondents herein).  After the death of Sankara Kurup, a claim was
raised by his son Viswanatha Kurup that he was entitled to the rights
and interests in said Theatre by virtue of a Will executed by his father.
Soon thereafter, proceedings were initiated by Kumara Kurup
before the Land Tribunal Alappuzha being OA No.3233 of 1975
submitting, inter alia that he was a cultivating tenant and as such entitled
to protection under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.  Viswanatha
Kurup was arrayed as respondent in the proceedings.  The application
preferred by Kumara Kurup was rejected 

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