IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 373 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.30/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KOLLAM RCP.9/2004 of RENT CONTROL COURT ., KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS (S): -------------------- 1. CHRISTY FERNANDEZ, MADHURA MADAM, NEAR ASAN MADAM, UDHAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2.SIJU CHRISTY, MADHURA MADAM, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.P.RAJAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. GOPALANASAN, VELLASSERI VEEDU, MELSSERI PIPE LINE, PALARIVATTOM COCHIN CORPORATIN. 2. RAJAMANI, 62 YEARS, D/O. GOPALANASAN, KAILAS HOUSE NO.32, PANACHIMOODU LINE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 373 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. They challenge in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under sub section (3) of Section 11. Even though the ground of arrears of rent was also invoked, the said ground does not survive for consideration in this revision. The need projected by the 2nd respondent landlady was that the building is required bona fide for occupation by herself and family for residence. The bona fides of the above need was disputed by the revision petitioners who contended that the landlady and family do not have to shift their residence over to the schedule building in Kollam as they are comfortably residing at Thiruvananthapuram where the landlady's husband is having business. It was also RCR.No.373/2011 2 contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. In the Rent Control Court, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B4 series apart from the oral evidence of the landlady as PW1 and that of the first revision petitioner as CPW1. The Rent Control Court was very much impressed by the evidence given by PW1 which was not at all shaken in cross examination. Accepting that evidence, the Rent Control Court held that the need is bona fide. It was also held that the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 cannot have any application in this case. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. Even though the revision petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority on making a reappraisal of the evidence would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised challenging the eviction order passed by the statutory authorities. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners RCR.No.373/2011 3 addressed strenuous and persuasive submissions before us on the basis of those grounds. All the submissions of the counsel for the revision petitioners were resisted by Sri.M.R.Rajesh learned counsel for the respondent landlady. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We have reminded ourselves of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. The question is whether there is any warrant for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the scheme of the Rent Control Act is the final court on facts. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered therein regarding the bona fides of the need projected as well as operation of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings entered on the basis of the evidence actually available on record. Those are reasonable findings also. When reasonable findings are entered on the basis of the evidence on record, this court in revision is RCR.No.373/2011 4 not expected to upset those findings. We do not find any warrant for interference. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. 5. After our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the counsel requested that at least 6 months time be given to the revision petitioners to surrender the premises. Even though this request is opposed by Mr.Rajesh, we are inclined to accept the above request. 6. Accordingly, the result of the above discussion is as follows; The Revision is dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery till 31/3/2012 subject to the following conditions; The first revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondents on or before 31/3/2012 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and also to pay RCR.No.373/2011 5 occupational charges at the existing rent rate without fail till actual surrender of the building is given. We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of time allowed as above, only if the affidavit is filed on time and undertakings therein are honoured. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk