IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 RCRev..No. 129 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.39/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.33/2007 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/APPELANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SUBAIR ALI,S/O.KUNJALI,AGED 55 YEARS, MANGALATHARA VEEDU,CHULOOR.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.S.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- A.NOUSHAD,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,N.S.MANZIL,T.C.NO.41/2445, UDHAYA COMPOUND,MANACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 129 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The allegation of the landlord in the context of the ground under Section 11(2)(b) was that rent at the rate of Rs.4500/- per mensem is in arrears since April 2006. The prominent defence to this allegation was that a sum of Rs.1 lakh is under deposit with the landlord as advance and that the amount has to be adjusted against the rent which falls due and hence there is no arrears. 2. The need projected by the landlord in the context of sub-section (3) of section 11 was that he is a commerce RCR.129/10 -2- graduate presently without any employment or business and he needs the building in question for conduct of business in cassettes and mobile phones . The bona fides of the need was disputed. It was contended that the landlord is a very affluent person and that he is having partnership business along with his father and that the need projected is only a ruse for evicting the tenant as the tenant failed to accede to the landlord's demand for an unlawful increase in the monthly rent. 3. Before the Rent Control Court the landlord was examined as PW-1 and his father was examined as PW-2. Documentary evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of Exts.A1 to A12. On the side of the tenant, himself was examined as CPW-1 and document on his side consisted of Exts.B1 to B3. Apart from that, reports submitted by the two commissioners were marked as Exts.C-1 and C-2. The Rent Control Court evaluating the evidence came to the RCR.129/10 -3- conclusion that rent was in arrears as alleged. The above finding was entered on the basis of the admissions of the tenant himself. It was found on the basis of Ext.A5 rental agreement that a sum of Rs.1 lakh had been entrusted by way of security. Accordingly order under section 11(2)(b) was passed. The oral evidence adduced by PW-1 supported by PW-2 inspired the Rent Control Court. That court accepted that evidence and found that the need is bona fide. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso. The tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reappraised the entire evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 4. Sri. A.V.James, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very strenuously on the basis of the various grounds raised. He submitted at the very outset that RCR.129/10 -4- the respondent landlord does not have title over the building in question. According to him, the title to the building in question stands in the name of his father and if an opportunity is given the petitioner will be able to establish that it is the father who owns the building. As regards the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b), the learned counsel submitted that a sum of Rs.1 lakhs paid by the tenant is now outstanding with the landlord. The same was paid as advance and is liable to be adjusted against the rent in arrears. He submitted that the need was projected only as a ruse and counter blast to an unsuccessful demand by the landlord for enhancement in rent. All the submissions of Mr.James were resisted by Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent. 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent RCR.129/10 -5- Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. Under the statutory scheme the final court on facts is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is seen that finding that the rent is in arrears as alleged and the further finding that the need is bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso have been entered by the authorities below on the basis of the inspiring evidence adduced by the landlord. We are of the view that those findings are reasonable. When reasonable findings founded on evidence are entered by the fact finding authorities under the statutory scheme, this court will not be justified in interfering with those findings within the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. The revision necessarily has to fail. The learned counsel for the respondent does not have any serious opposition in granting a reasonable time to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, provided the entire arrears of rent is RCR.129/10 -6- discharged. Hence the result of this RCR will be as follows: RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The Execution Court is directed not to order or effect delivery of the building in question till 31-12-2010 subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 31-12-2010 and undertaking further to discharge the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority within three months from today. It will also be undertaken that occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.4500/- will be paid for the subsequent period till 31-12-2010 promptly and regularly. It is open to the revision petitioner to get the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated if he so desires by filing application under Section RCR.129/10 -7- 11(2)(c) before the Rent Control Court. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit as directed above on time. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/- RCR.129/10 -8-