IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 127 of 2010(C) ------------------------------ RCA.19/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR RCP.8/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT,ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------- P.A.JACOB, (S/O.P.L.ANTONY (PROF)), P.J.AUTOMOBILES, BRIDGE ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RASIA, (W/O.ABDUL SALAM), PARILAKATHUT HOUSE, ALUVA KARA. 2. SHEBIN AHAMAD, (S/O.ABDUL SALAM), DO. DO. 3. VIMAL A.SALAM, (S/O.ABDUL SALAM), DO. DO. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against him on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. In fact, the RCP was filed in the year 2002 by the father of respondents 3 and 4 and husband of the first respondent claiming that the building is required bona fide for the occupation by himself and his sons for doing business in furniture and automobile spares. The Rent Control Court in the first instance after holding enquiry found that the need was not bona R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -2- fide and dismissed the RCP without enquiring into the tenant's contention that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso. The landlord preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority as RCA.18/05. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner in the RCP died and thereupon his wife and children were impleaded as additional respondents in the RCA. The subsequent event of the father passing away was highlighted before the Appellate Authority as a circumstance which obliterates the need projected by the father. The Appellate Authority took the view that since the need projected by the father was need for occupation by himself and his sons, the need will survive at least in respect of the sons. Taking that R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -3- view of the matter, the RCP was remanded to the Rent Control Court by judgment dated 19/01/07 giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. After enquiry the Rent Control Court again dismissed the RCP holding that the need is not bona fide, by judgment dated 18/07/07. This time also the Rent Control Court did not examine the question whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of the second proviso. The landlord preferred RCA No.19/07. That appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority which ordered eviction against the revision petitioner under Section 11(3). The revision petitioner's plea for a remand to the Rent Control Court for considering the question of his entitlement for the R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -4- second proviso was turned down finding that the evidence adduced by him fell short of holding that he is entitled for the benefit of the second proviso. The tenant filed RCR.233/09 before this Court. Even though several grounds had been raised in the RCR this Court found merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the tenant that the finding that the need is bona fide cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence by the sons who are going to occupy the building. This Court also allowed an application which had been filed by the landlord before the Appellate Authority to show that in view of the need, one of the additional respondents had taken a building on lease and had actually started business in the said building. R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -5- Thereafter, this Court remanded the RCP to the Appellate Authority giving liberty to the landlord to examine one of the additional respondents in the RCP. It is pursuant to remand that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Several grounds have been raised in this revision assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.T.K.M.Unnithan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments before us based on all those grounds. All the submissions of Sri.Unnithan were resisted by Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai who had already lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent in anticipation of this revision. As R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -6- a last plea Mr.Unnithan submitted that if for any reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority sufficiently long period be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. The above request was opposed stiffly by Mr.Chandran Pillai who pointed out that rent at the original rate of Rs.1,000/- is due from March, 2007 till 01/01/10 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 3. We have very strenuously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. On going R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -7- through the impugned judgment, we find that the finding entered therein that the need projected in the RCP is a bona fide one and the further finding that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 is founded on evidence adduced by the parties including the additional evidence which was adduced by the landlords before the Appellate Authority pursuant to this Court's remand order. According to us, those findings are reasonable findings. When reasonable findings are entered on the basis of legal evidence on record by the statutory final fact finding authority, we do not think that we will be justified in saying that there is illegality, R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -8- irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 warranting interference. It is in evidence that due to the delay experienced in obtaining eviction, the needy son of the original landlord who is no more has taken a building on lease and has started the business which was proposed in the RCP. That being so, this revision necessarily has to fail. Notwithstanding the very stiff opposition of Mr.Chandran Pillai, we feel that there is justification on the facts and circumstances attending on this case to grant time till 31/12/10 to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. However, we are inclined to grant time only on conditions. 4. The result of the RCR accordingly will be R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -9- as follows:- The RCR will stand dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in favour of the respondents till 31/12/10 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent which was fallen due during the period from first March, 2007 till date within 45 days from today to the second respondent either directly or through the second respondent's counsel before the Rent Control Court and produce receipt before the execution court. Arrears will be calculated from the first March, 2007 till 01/01/10 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -10- mensem and thereafter at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 2) The revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the second respondent on or before 31/12/10 and will undertake through the same affidavit that occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem will be paid by him without fail as and when the same falls due till 31/12/10. The affidavit as directed above will be filed within three weeks from today. It is made clear that if the above conditions are not complied with or if the revision petitioner commits default in the matter of payment of the amounts due, the R. C. R. No.127 of 2010 -11- respondents will have the permission to bring the matter to the notice of the execution court in which case the execution court will be justified in effecting delivery forthwith notwithstanding this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- The words “second respondent” occurring in the order dated 01/06/2010 in R.C.R. No.127/2010 in line Nos.4 and 5 of paragraph 4(1) (page 9) and in line Nos.3 and 4 in paragraph 4(2) are corrected as “first respondent” as per order dated 13/07/2010 in I.A.1632/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)