The dispute is for the shop between the Landlord and the tenant. Eviction petition was filed by the respondent on the three grounds namely; arrears of the rent, bonafide requirement for additional accommodation for the landlords business and material damage to premises under section 11(2)(b), 11(8) and 11(4)(ii) of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The trial court held that the landlord will be able to run his establishment in a better manner whereas,the tenant is not able to establish much hardship caused to him. In this view the matter the eviction petition were decreed under section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Control Act, Afterwards Rent Control Appellate authority reversed the judgement of the trial court. They said that many rooms are vacant landlord can use them too. The HC interfered with the findings of the Appellate authority and stated that the appellate authority was wrong in considering the vacant rooms and HC agreed with the trial court hearing.

The SC has taken various precedents into consideration Bardrinarayan Chunlial Bhutada v. Gvidram Ramgopal Mundada (2003) SC: It was stated that HC in its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as if it is a second court of first appeal by setting out findings of fact by appellate authority on re-appericiation of the same.

RukminiAmma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana & ors. (1993) 1 SCC 499- It was held that Section 20 of Kerala Rent Control Act has the wider language but it doesnotenables the HC to act as a first or a second court of appeal.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78,It was stated that Rent Control Act does not entitle the HC to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate authority because on re-appericiation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the HC is revisional jurisdiction under these acts is confined to find out that finding of the facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law.

The SC has reiterated that the HC, in its revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact by the Appellate Authority, unless there is perversity or misappreciation of evidence by it. It also stated that  Kerala Rent Act is different from Bombay Rent Act.