IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 261 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.19/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR RCP.8/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------- 1. THANKA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.LATE MANAKKALATH VELAYUDHAN, NO.IV/500, KOLAZHI PANCHAYATH, THIRUR DESOM,KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. SASI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE MANAKKALAT VELAYUDHAN, NO.IV/500, KOLAZHI PANCHAYATH,THIRUR DESOM,KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 3. PUSHPA @ PUSHPAKARAN, AGED 46 YRS, S/O.LATE MANAKKALATH VELAYUDHAN, NO.IV/500, KOLAZHI PANCHAYATH,THIRUR DESOM,KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SMT.K.P.SHAMEENA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- VYDYANAHA IYER, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.NADUVIL MADAM, RAMASWAMY IYYER, KONNOLY, POTTA LANE, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK AND DIST THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 261 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord, who was aged 76 at the time when the rent control petition was instituted, was that he wants to occupy the building for conducting business in electronics equipments after reconstructing the same in view of its present dilapidated condition. 2. The tenants by filing objections disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. They even contended that they were entitled to fixation of tenure over the land upon which RCR.No.261/2011 2 the building is situated. They also contended that there is no bona fides in the need projected and that at any rate the rent control petition is liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. The Rent Control Court considered the preliminary point as to whether the denial of title is bona fide. The above point was answered in favour of the landlord mainly on the basis of the decree in a suit which the landlord had filed for evicting the tenant, wherein also the very same contention had been raised by the tenants and repelled by the civil court. The Rent Control Court also noticed that the tenants pursued unsuccessful proceedings for assignment of land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal, the Land Reform Appellate Authority as well as before this court under section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Rent Control Court, accordingly, held that the denial of title is bereft of any bona fides. On the basis of the enquiry conducted into the merits of the eviction ground, the evidence in which consisted of Exts.A1 to A4, Ext.B1 and C1 commission report, oral evidence of PW1 & RW1 the Rent Control Court held that the bona fides RCR.No.261/2011 3 of the need projected by the landlord was established. Though it was found that the landlord was having possession of another building, it was further found that the above building, unlike the petition schedule building, was a small building. It was also noticed that the condition of the present building was dilapidated and hence the need of the landlord to construct the present building was also justified. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (3) of the Act. 4. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal preferred by the tenants, made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 5. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Shoby K.Francis, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed extensive submissions before us on the basis of the various grounds raised. The learned counsel submitted that though the findings of the statutory authorities are concurrent, they are tainted with illegality, irregularity and improprieties as contemplated under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. RCR.No.261/2011 4 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We have kept in mind the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 20. The question that arises for consideration is whether there is warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 on the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. We find that the finding by the Appellate Authority that the denial of the landlords' title made by the tenant is without bona fides and the further finding that that the need projected by the landlord under sub section (3) of Section 11 is a bona fide one and also finding that the rent control petition is not liable to be rejected in terms of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are reasonable findings founded on evidence actually available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory authorities on the basis of the evidence this court is not expected ordinarily to upset those findings by venturing upon a de novo reappraisal of the findings. In short, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the RCR.No.261/2011 5 revisional jurisdiction. The revision necessarily has to fail and accordingly will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE dpk