Decided on January 20,1978



- (1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlord. His application for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenants was allowed both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. But on revision, the learned District Judge, on a re-appreciation of the evidence reversed the decisions of the courts below.
(2.) THE 1st respondent is the tenant of the landlord-revision petitioner. Respondents 2 to S are persons to whom interest in the building by sub-lease is alleged to have been transferred by the 1st respondent. In respect of the 2nd respondent all the authorities held that there was no sub-lease;. It was is respect of respondents 3 to 5 that the Rent control Court as well as the Appellate Authority held that there was sub-lease. The Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate authority relied on Exts. A3 to A5 to conclude that a workshop called S. H. Motor Workshop was being run by respondents 3 and 4 in the building. It is admitted by the 1st respondent, the original tenant, that respondents 3 and 4 were operating a workshop, but as his employees. The Rent Control Court and the appellate Authority found that respondents 3 and 4 were not employees of the 1st respondent. They also held that the municipal records including the licences in respect of the workshop proved beyond doubt that the workshop was operated by respondents 3 and 4 in their personal capacity and not as employees or agents of any one else. In regard to the 5th respondent, the Rent Control court as well as the Appellate Authority held that a sub-lease of the building was granted to him by the 1st respondent. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of a kychit (Ext. A8) and the evidence of the 5th respondent. The learned District Judge, setting aside the orders of the authorities below him in regard to respondents 3 and 4, held that, although Exts. A3 to A5 records referred to a workshop called S. H. Motor workshop and to the licences thereof, certain mistakes in the door numbers threw doubts on the correctness of the finding of the Rent Control Court and the appellate Authority. As regards the 5th respondent, the learned District Judge held that the kychit produced by him showed tampering with the municipal number of the building and it was therefore intrinsically unreliable.
(3.) IT is settled law that the jurisdiction of the revising Authority under S. 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965, is not unlimited; he does not sit in appeal; his jurisdiction to interfere with finding of fact is limited to cases where the impugned order is perverse or arbitrary in the sense that, on the basis of the evidence on record, no reasonable tribunal would have come to such a decision; or, the decision was rendered on the basis of irrelevant consideration; or, that it was unsupported by any evidence whatever: Doraswami Chettiar v. Handammaden Kunhiraman, 1969 klj. 227. In my view, the learned District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in re-appreciating the evidence and in reversing the finding of facts by the authorities below him. The Tribunals of facts, viz. , the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, having on a proper consideration of the evidence come to the conclusion that a sub-lease was created in favour of respondents 3 to 5, the landlord became entitled to recovery of possession under sub-section 4 (i) of S. 11. If the building or a portion thereof is subleased without the consent of the landlord, the sub-section is attracted and the tenant is bound to put the landlord in possession of the whole of the building leased to him.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.