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 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 29 of 2010() ----------------------- (RCA NO.52/08 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY,I TRIVANDRUM. RCP NO. 1/06 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/3RD COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNNY P.JOSE, S/O.LATE P.P.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINKAL, TC/11/1415-1, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 1 & 2/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 AND 2. ---------------------------------------------- 1. CHITRA RAMESAN, D/O.RAMESAN, SUMTHRIPTHY, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.RAMESAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, SUMTHRIPTHY, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.J.PAUL, S/O.LATE P.P.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINKAL, RC 11/1415-1, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. P.J.LEELA, D/O.LATE P.P.JOSE, ALAPPAT PALATHINKAL, RC 11/1415-1, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE XX FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned senior counsel addressed us extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He drew our attention to Ext.B1 document which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the rent control petition. He submitted that going by the express terms of Ext.B1 the jural relationship between the parties is that of a licensor and licensee. He submitted that the jural relationship being not that of tenant and landlord the proceedings for eviction under the rent control statute is not maintainable. He then R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -2- drew our attention to sub section (9) of Section 11 as well as to Ext.B3. He submitted that as per Ext.B3, the period of lease (which according to him is a licence) has been extended indefinitely on condition that the revision petitioner shall pay rent/licence fee enhanced by 25%. According to him, even if the relationship between the parties is found to be that of landlord and tenant, sub section (9) of Section 11 will apply and the rent control petition is not maintainable. 2. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned senior counsel. A careful reading of the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioner to the rent control petition will show that the revision petitioner has admitted his status in the petition schedule building to be that of a R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -3- tenant. It is not the nomenclature of Ext.B1 that decides the issue as to what is the nature of the demise. A reading of Ext.B1 will show that notwithstanding the nomenclature of the document as a licence deed, the revision petitioner has been given possession. Various admissions in the statement of objections will also show that the revision petitioner had been paying rent to the respondent landlord. Even Ext.B3, in our view, shows that the relationship between the parties is that of lessor and lessee and not licensor and licensee. We also notice that a contention that the Rent Control Court does not have jurisdiction in view of the relationship between the parties, is not specifically taken up. As a matter of fact if the revision petitioner was having R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -4- such a contention he was expected to take up that contention specifically in the statement of objections. 3. Same is the position as regards the contention that the RCP is not maintainable in view of subsection (9) of Section 11. Ext.B3 is the document relied on to contend that the lease is one in perpetuity. Ext.B3, we notice is only a letter. Any lease exceeding a period of one year can be created only by means of a registered instrument in view of Sections 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. Section 49 of the Registration Act is also relevant. Here also no specific contention is raised in the statement of objection. We therefore are not inclined to accept the R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -5- submissions of the learned senior counsel. 4.Mr.Dandapani would assail the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the merits of the eviction ground. But having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under section 20 which is revisional, we notice that the concurrent finding by the authorities below that the tenant is having another building in his possession reasonably sufficient for his purposes in the same city, town and village, and the further finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously for more than six months without reasonable cause and also the finding that the landlord bona fide needs additional accommodation for his personal use are all findings entered on the basis of legal evidence R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -6- which was available on record. In this jurisdiction under section 20, we are not ordinarily expected to reappraise the evidence and substitute our conclusions on facts for the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below especially when they are concurrent and founded on evidence. Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under section 20 we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 tainting the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. 5. As a last submission the learned senior counsel requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioners for surrendering the building in question. R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -7- Accordingly, we issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to decide the question of time and posted the case to this day. 6. Today we heard Sri.Dandapani and Sri.G.S.Reghunath on the question of time to be granted to the petitioner for surrendering the premises. Mr.Dandapani insisted that at least one year's time be granted. Mr.Reghunath would submit that the revision petitioner is a person who is possessed of as many as thirty rooms out of which at least fifteen rooms are kept vacant for a long period of time. He further submitted that section 11(4)(v) cessation of occupation is one of the grounds on which he is ordered to be evicted and it will not be proper to grant time to such a tenant to vacate the premises. Mr.Dandapani R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -8- would oppose the above submission and request that at least one year's time be granted. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31/01/11 to surrender the premises subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court on or before 08/04/10 undertaking to surrender possession of the building in question to the respondent on or before 31/01/11. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and R. C. R. No.29 of 2010 -9- occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid promptly as and when the same falls due. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-