Jayanti Amritlal vs Popatlal Mulayi and others

Mohammed, J.—This revision u/s 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Real Control) Act, 1965 (for short Met'') irises from the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam in R. C. P. No 50 of 1987 u/s 11 (4) (v) of the Act. The revision petitioner and fifth respondent are the tenants of the building sought to be evicted. Respondents 1 to 4 are the landlords. Their predecessor - in - interest filed the application for eviction alleging that the tenants ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause. The fifth respondent did not appear before the Rent Controllor and she remained ex-parte throughout. The revision petitioner alone contested the case. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence available In the case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants have ceased to occupy the building in question continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause. The order of eviction was accordingly passed u/s 11(4) (v). In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner u/s 18 of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority independently examined the entire evidence on record and came to the same conclusion. Thus we have before us a concurrent finding of fact namely, the, tenants have ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without any reasonable cause. Of course this finding is attacked by the Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner While marshalling his arguments. It is not the function of this Court u/s 20of the Act to examine the evidence on record once again and come to a different conclusion on re-appreciation of evidence. The revitional court must be reluctant to embark upon independent reassessment of the evidence and supplant a conclusion of Its own so long as the evidence on record admitted of and supported the '' one reached by the courts below. (See : K A. Aathappai v. C. Ahamed 1992 (2) KLJ 376 SC A different conclusion can be had only by confining Itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. (See: Rugmini Amma Saradamma v. Kalyani Sulachana 1993 AIR 1993 S. C. 1616 After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned judgment suffers from any illegality, Irregularity or impropriety.

Learned Counsel made an attempt to argue that the tenants are entitled to the benefits under sub-section (17) of Section 11 of the Act. The said provision is attracted only in a case where the tenant is sought to be evicted for bonafide occupation of the landlord or of the occupation of any member of his family dependent on him. In other words, the protection under this sub-section is available to a tenant who is sought to be evicted u/s 11 (3). Whist is contained In subsection (17) is only an ectype of the same words in Section 11(3)of the Act. That being so, in a case where eviction is sought u/s 11(4)(v), the provision contained in sub-section (17) of Section 11 of the Act ia not attracted. The contention of the Learned Counsel therefore fails. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.