Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Rights: Reversal of Eviction Order in Kerala Rent Control Case (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 08 June 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 439

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturn findings of fact made by an Appellate Authority in a rent control case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a dispute arising from the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965. This case highlights the importance of the limits of revisional jurisdiction and the protection of tenants from arbitrary eviction. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment, with Justice Nariman authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Addissery Raghavan, was a tenant in two shop rooms owned by the respondent, Cheruvalath Krishnadasan. One shop room was on the ground floor (60 sq ft) used for textile business, and the other was on the first floor (60 sq ft), used as a godown. The ground floor room was leased on 10 October 1991, with a monthly rent that was eventually increased to Rs. 800. The first-floor room was leased on 10 July 1998, with a rent that was later increased to Rs. 317. On 11 October 2013, the landlord filed eviction petitions for both rooms.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially ruled in favor of the landlord, decreeing eviction under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act, citing the landlord’s bonafide need for additional space for his construction business. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed this decision, noting that the landlord had other vacant rooms in the same building and in other properties. This was based on the Commissioner’s report and the Building Tax Assessment Register. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, overturned the Appellate Authority’s findings, agreeing with the trial court and stating that the Appellate Authority should not have considered vacant rooms in other buildings owned by the landlord. The High Court also stated that the tenant had another room in a different building, which was considered as an advantage to the landlord. The High Court thus restored the eviction order.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 11(8) and Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala Rent Control Act).

Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act states:

“A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for his personal use.”

The provision also includes a proviso stating that the court must reject the eviction application if the hardship caused to the tenant outweighs the advantage to the landlord.

Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act outlines the revisional powers of the High Court:

“In cases, where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.”

Arguments

Appellant (Tenant):

• The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-evaluating the facts already considered by the Appellate Authority.
• The Appellate Authority’s findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity.
• The High Court should not have substituted its own findings for those of the Appellate Authority.

Respondent (Landlord):

• The Appellate Authority had wrongly considered the availability of vacant rooms in other buildings owned by the landlord, which is not permissible under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act.
• The Appellate Authority had perversely dealt with the material facts on record.
• The trial court’s judgment was correct and should be upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. What are the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act?
2. Whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the findings of fact made by the Appellate Authority?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court approved this case, reaffirming that the High Court cannot act as a first or second court of appeal.
• Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [CITATION]: The Court relied on this judgment to reiterate the limits of revisional jurisdiction.
• Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander [CITATION]: The Court clarified that this case does not allow the High Court to re-appreciate evidence.
• Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it pertained to partial eviction and not the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that a High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited. It cannot act as an appellate court and re-evaluate evidence unless the findings of fact are perverse or based on no evidence. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority’s findings were based on material evidence, including the Commissioner’s report and the Building Tax Assessment Register, and did not suffer from any perversity. The Court also considered the comparative hardship, noting that the Appellate Authority correctly found that the hardship to the tenant outweighed the advantage to the landlord.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot act as a second court of appeal. It cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings of fact unless the findings of the lower court are perverse.
• The Appellate Authority’s findings were based on material evidence, including the Commissioner’s report and the Building Tax Assessment Register. These findings were not perverse and did not suffer from any misappreciation of evidence.
• The High Court should not have interfered with the Appellate Authority’s findings on comparative hardship, as they were not perverse.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the revisional power of the High Court is limited and cannot be equated with the power of a court of first appeal. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the Appellate Authority. The Court also considered the comparative hardship, noting that the Appellate Authority correctly found that the hardship to the tenant outweighed the advantage to the landlord.

Key quotes from the judgment:

• “The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot act as if it is a second court of first appeal by setting aside findings of fact by the Appellate Authority on reappreciation of the same.”
• “The observation in Ram Dass that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini.”
• “A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Rent Control Act is limited and does not allow it to act as a second court of appeal.
• Findings of fact by the Appellate Authority should not be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
• The principle of comparative hardship must be considered in eviction cases under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the judgment of the Appellate Authority, thereby ruling in favor of the tenant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under the Kerala Rent Control Act is limited and does not allow it to act as a second court of appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in previous cases such as Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & Ors. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh. This case clarifies that the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings of fact unless the findings of the lower court are perverse. This strengthens the position of tenants and limits the scope for landlords to obtain eviction orders based on flimsy grounds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Addissery Raghavan vs. Cheruvalath Krishnadasan underscores the importance of adhering to the established limits of revisional jurisdiction. By overturning the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the need to protect tenants’ rights and ensure that eviction orders are based on sound legal reasoning and factual findings. The judgment also highlights the significance of the principle of comparative hardship in eviction cases. The Court has clarified that the High Court cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Appellate Authority unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, thus strengthening the protection available to tenants under the Kerala Rent Control Act.