The High Court, while entertaining a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965 should not re-examine the evidences.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.8.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 6147 of 2019, titled as Thankamany Amma and Ors. versus Omana Amma and Ors. held that the High Court while entertaining a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, 1965 ought not to act like an Appellate Court and re-examine the evidences.

Challenge

The factual matrix of this case is one Sanakara Kurup who was the owner of a land, opened a  theatre on the land (“Suit property”) and named it “Manorama Theatre”. This theatre was managed by the son-in-law of Mr. Sankara Kurup, Mr.Kumara Kurup (the predecessor of the Respondents herein). After Sankara Kurup died, his son, Mr. Vishwanatha Kurup claimed that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of a will signed by Mr. Sankara Kurup. Soon thereafter, Mr. Kumara Kurup approached the Land Tribunal, Alappuzha, by filing an application in the year 1975 claiming that he was a cultivating tenant and therefore entitled to the protection under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that Mr. Kumara Kurup was merely a manager of the theatre and therefore the application was not maintainable. Mr. Kumara Kurup died in the year 1982 and his successors, the Respondents herein inherited his interests.

In the year 2009, the Appellant herein, filed a petition before the Rent Control Court for the eviction of the Respondents from the suit property claiming that the Respondents have stopped paying rent and also that the property is required for the personal use of the Appellant. The Respondents challenged the ownership of the Appellant. The Rent Control Court, relying upon the decision of the Land Tribunal, passed an order dated 08.04.2014 holding that the hand-written statement of account maintained by Mr. Sanakara Kurup, shows that he was the owner of the suit property and Mr. Vishwanatha Kurup, being the only heir of Mr. Sankara Kurup, is entitled to the ownership of the suit property by way of inheritance. The Rent Control Court further observed that as Mr. Kumara Kurup had taken a stand before the Land Tribunal that he was a tenant, therefore his successors cannot have a better title than him. The Rent Control Court while allowing the Petition directed the Respondents to evict the property within one month from the date of the order. The Respondents challenged the said order by filing appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.02.2017 stating that it was an admitted case of Mr. Kumara Kurup before the Land Tribunal that he is not the owner of the suit property and therefore, his successors cannot have a better title than him. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the Respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court of Kerala which was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court by the order dated 09.08.2018 stating that there is no material proof that there was any landlord-tenant relationship between Mr. Sankara Kurup and Mr. Kumara Kurup and if there is no material proof to this effect then the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of the Appellant herein under the Kerala Rent Control Act 1965.

Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after going through judgments and the provision of section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court dated 09.08.2018 and restored the decision of the eviction of the Respondents by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while entertaining the appeal, considered the fact that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority had decided the case on the basis of the decision of the Land Tribunal wherein the predecessor of the Respondents had admitted that he was merely a tenant and to support the same, a hand-written  account report was relied upon by the Tribunal wherein it was shown that Mr. Sankara Kurup was the owner and had borne the expenses of the construction of the theatre. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that Mr. Kumara Kurup had claimed himself to be the tenant and therefore the Respondents cannot have better title than him.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went into the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court as court of revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act and held that the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Court while entertaining a revision petition and therefore cannot re-examine evidences.