9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the revision under Section 115 of the CPC lies to the High Court from a revision order passed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965? 2. Whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 in setting aside the judgments and orders of the courts below in ordering eviction of the appellant from the premises in question reversing the findings of facts? 3. Whether eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building could be ordered for the user of the building for residence of the landlord if the Accommodation Controller had refused permission under Section 17 of the Act to convert the building from non-residential to residential? 4. Where the Accommodation Controller refused the permission to convert the building from non-residential to residential, does the claim to the building by the landlord for a residential purpose become illegal and not recognized by law, and whether the claim of the landlord can still be held to be bona fide? 5. Whether in ordering eviction the special reasons relied on by the High Court on a reappreciation of facts are borne out from the evidence in this case and whether the facts stated by the High Court constitute "special reasons" required under the first proviso to Section 11(3) in ordering eviction and setting aside the judgments and orders of the courts below? Detailed Analysis: 1. Revision under Section 115 of CPC: The Supreme Court held that no revision lies to the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC from a revision order passed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Court emphasized that the Act provides a complete code for the regulation of leasing and eviction processes, stipulating that the decision of the appellate authority shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law except as provided in Section 20. The Court stated, "It is inconceivable to have two revisions. The scheme of the Act does not warrant such a conclusion." 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115: The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC by setting aside the judgments and orders of the lower courts. The Court noted that the High Court's interference was contrary to the legislative intent and public policy, which aims for quick disposal and finality of cases. The Court stated, "The language of the provisions of Section 18(5) read with Section 20 inhibits further revision. The courts must so construe." 3. Eviction for Residential Use: The Court did not delve into the merits of whether eviction from a non-residential building for residential use is permissible if the Accommodation Controller had refused conversion under Section 17, as it resolved the case on the jurisdictional issue alone. 4. Legality and Bona Fide of Landlord's Claim: Similarly, the Court did not address the legality and bona fides of the landlord's claim for residential use following the Accommodation Controller's refusal for conversion, given the primary jurisdictional finding. 5. Special Reasons for Eviction: The Supreme Court did not analyze whether the High Court's special reasons for ordering eviction were supported by evidence, as the appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional ground alone. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and reinstating the decisions of the lower courts. The Court emphasized the finality of the appellate authority's decision under the Act and ruled out the possibility of a second revision to the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court also noted a concession by the tenant's counsel to increase the rent to Rs. 500 per month. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
