Taleb Kaleeli vs M/s Abbot Laboratories India Ltd.

S.S. Subramani, J.—Landlord in R.C.O.P. 734 of 1992 on the file of 12th Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner.

Landlord filed eviction petition alleging that he requires scheduled premises for his own occupation. Petition was filed u/s 10(3) (a) (i) and 10(3) (c)

of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Rent Controller held that landlord is not entitled to file application under both sections

and held that the petition is not maintainable. It further held that the claim for additional accommodation is also not bona fide and dismissed the

petition.

The matter was taken by landlord in R.C.A.67 of 1996 on the file of Appellate Authority/ VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. Appellate

Authority held that eviction petition is maintainable u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act i.e., for bonafide requirement as additional accommodation. Appellate

authority further held that landlord and his wife are old and they are not keeping good health. But at the same time, it found that the claim is not

bonafide and confirmed the dismissal of petition.

It is against the concurrent finding of authorities below, this revision petition is filed u/s 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act.

According to tenant, claim for eviction is not bona fide. Landlord is interested only in enhancement of rent. Originally the rate of rent was only

Rs. 5,500/- and subsequently, the same was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/-. There was further increase to Rs. 9,000/- and then to Rs. 12,000/-. When

two years period was over, landlord demanded further enhancement in rent to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Tenant could not accept the demand and

wanted time for negotiation. Finally tenant also agreed for enhancement in rent to Rs. 12,000/- provided the term of tenancy is at least 5 years.

Landlord did not commit themselves and immediately moved this Court with the Rent Control Petition. According to tenant, the ill-health alleged is

only a ground for eviction. It is further submitted that landlord is residing in second floor and they are occupying non-residential premises. If they

feel difficulty in climbing upstairs, they could have occupied the first floor of the building which remained vacant for some time and the same was let

out to another tenant after eviction proceedings were initiated. The said objection was accepted by both authorities below which held that the claim

of petitioner is not bonafide.

Before considering the merits of the case, I have to consider the scope of revisional powers under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act.

In the very recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in T. Sivasubramaniam and Others Vs. Kasinath Pujari and Others, of

the Judgment, their Lordships held thus,

So far as the second submission is concerned, the language employed in Section 25 of the Act, which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High

Court, is very wide. u/s 25 of the Act, the High Court can call for and examine the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself as to

regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders passed therein. The words ""to satisfy itself

employed in Section 25 of the Act no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact

merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High

Court u/s 25 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding

recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in

interfering with such a finding recorded by the courts below......

In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, case coming under Delhi Rent Control Act, in pant 11 their Lordships held thus.

.......The phraseology of the provision as reproduced herein before provides an interesting reading placed in position with the phraseology

employed by the legislature in drafting Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional jurisdiction

of the High Court is circumscribed by the subordinate court having committed one of the three errors, namely (i) having exercised jurisdiction not

vested in it by law, or (ii) having tailed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction with illegality or material

irregularity. Under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25B, the expression governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court

is ""for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the controller is according to law"". The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court u/s

25B(8) is not so limited as is u/s 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an appellate court. The High court cannot enter into appreciation or

reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court

is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of ""whether it is according to law"". For that limited purpose, it may enter into

reappraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or

is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding

on a wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray of lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the

finding of the controller ""not according to law"" calling for an interference under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act A

judgment leading to a miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law.

(See: Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, and Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani and Others,

In (1999)3 S.C.C.645, (Ubaiba v. Damodaran) a case under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in para 3 their Lordships have

held thus,

......Having examined the rival submission and having gone through the decision of this Court referred to earlier, we are of the considered opinion

that though the revisional power under the Rent Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be equated even

with the second appellate power conferred on the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Not with standing the use of the expression

propriety"" in Section 20, the revisional Court therefore will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place

of the conclusion of the appellate authority.....

From the above decisions it is clear that this Court can consider the evidence to see whether the authorities below have taken into consideration

all relevant materials and approached the question in the right perspective. Merely because conclusion is wrong, this Court is not entitled to

interfere while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. If any evidence which is irrelevant or inadmissible evidence is taken into consideration or if law

declared by the Honourable Supreme Court or by this Court was not taken into consideration by the authorities below, it will be a ground for

interference in revision. Law is also well settled that on reappreciation of evidence, finding of the courts below cannot be substituted merely

because another, view is also possible. Within this limited jurisdiction, I have to consider whether the decision of authorities below require

interference u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Regarding the maintainability of the eviction petition, no argument was put forward by Learned Counsel for respondent challenging the decision

of Appellate, Authority. Appellate Authority has, held that eviction petition is maintainable for the bona fide requirement as additional

accommodation.,

Landlord is occupying second floor of the building. It is admitted by both sides that landlord and his wife alone are residing in the second floor

and all their children are in United Kingdom. It is also in evidence that landlord went to London few months before filing eviction petition, and on

return continued to occupy the second floor. It is their case while they were in London, they had some difficulties in climbing up staircase and they

were under treatment in United Kingdom. Exs. P1 and P2 support the case of landlord mat they are not keeping good health while in U.K. After

their return to India, they continued the treatment Exs. p3. and p4 are certificates issued by the Doctor who is treating them. The other exhibits are

documents that came into existence after eviction petition is filed. All these show that landlord and his wife are continuing treatment. Even though

Rent Controller held that illness has not been proved and certificate has been produced only to create evidence, that finding was not accepted by

the Appellate Authority. Rent Controller discarded Exs. Pl and P2 on the ground that the same are not proved by anyone. Regarding Exs.P3 and

P4 also Doctor who issued Certificate has not been examined. But the Doctor who is attending them daily was examined and he has interpreted

Exs. P3 and P4 and circumstances under which that was issued. Evidence of PW2 was believed by appellate authority in coming to the conclusion

that landlord and his wife are not keeping good health and it is difficult for them to climb staircase. It is also found by Appellate Authority that they

are aged and illness pleaded by them is true. The only ground on which Appellate Authority confirmed the view of Rent Controller is that the claim

is not bona fide. That is finding of fact. Various circumstances have been taken by authorities below to hold that the claim is not bonafide.

Even a few days before filing of eviction petition, landlord never demanded vacant possession on the ground on ill health. They only wanted

enhancement of rent is clear from the correspondence in the case. It is true that tenant also agreed for enhanced rent of Rs. 12,000/- provided

term of lease is extended by five years. Landlord was not agreeable for the same and they filed eviction petition. Learned Counsel for respondent

also submitted before this Court that he has advised his rent to pay rent of Rs. 12,000/- and they are continuing to pay the same.

Scheduled building is used as godown and for storing medicines and other pharmaceutical products by respondent. First floor of the building

also having same plinth area, became vacant. It was lying vacant for few months and it was admitted by landlord that the same was given on rent

subsequent to filing of petition. Why they could not occupy that building when it remained vacant is not explained by landlord. Counsel submitted

that entire first floor is used only for non-residential purposes and new tenant is also using the same only for that purpose. Scheduled building is

also used for non-residential purpose and if this explanation is accepted nothing prevents landlord from occupying first floor.

When both the courts on appreciation of evidence have held that the claim is not bona fide, and circumstances also show that such finding is

possible, I do not think that I am justified in interfering in this revision. Finding entered by authorities below is based on evidence and those facts

are not disputed. Landlord is only explaining the reasons of those admitted facts. Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of landlord and held

that the claim is not bona fide.

15.I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of lower court and hold that the decision of authorities below are in

accordance with law. In the result, the revision petition is without merit and consequently the same in dismissed. No costs.