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 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 322 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.25/2003 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TIRUR RCP.6/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- ACHIPRA MARAKKAR HAJI, S/O.KUNCHIRI STANDARD FURNITURE POOKAYIL BAZAR,TIRUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- CHUNDAM VEETTIL KAPPATTAKATH ABOOBACKER HAJI,S/O. HAMEED HAJI, VETTAM AMSOM DESOM,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 322 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 and clause (iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11. In fact, the landlord had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also. But, as the entire arrears was deposited before the rent control case was decided, the Rent Control Court did not pass order of eviction on the ground under section 11(2). 2. The need projected by the landlord in the context of ground under Section 11(3) was that the building is required for occupation by the landlord's son, who is dependent on the landlord. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant who claimed the protection of the provisos under sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlord's allegation in the context of RCR.No.322/2011 2 ground under Section 11 (4)(iii) was that the tenant has acquired possession of other buildings, which are reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements, in the same town. The tenant's defence was that the petition schedule building was taken by him way back in 1970 and that his principal place of business is the petition schedule building. The other buildings were taken as the petition schedule building was found insufficient for the needs of the tenant. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and in the enquiry evidence consisted of oral evidence of PWs1 and 2, RW1, Exts.A1 to A7 and Ext.C1 and C2 commissioner's plan and report respectively. On evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the eviction grounds under Section 11(3) and section 11(4)(iii) were established. It was found that the provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11 will not operate against the landlord. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed on the grounds under sub section (3) of Section 11 and under Section 11 (4)(iii). 3. The Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the Revision Petitioner, made a re-appraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control RCR.No.322/2011 3 Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. Challenging the appellate judgment, this revision is filed raising various grounds. Sri.K.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of eviction passed by the statutory authorities on the grounds under Section 11 (3) as well as under Section 11 (4)(iii) is vitiated being the result of erroneous appreciation of the evidence. According to the learned counsel, illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by section 20 are tainted the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.Ramachandran. As indicated, Mr.Ramachandran was very vehement and persuasive in his submissions, particularly in the submissions pertaining to the ground challenging the order of eviction under Section 11(3). The question which falls for decision by us is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the scheme of the Rent Control Act is the final court on facts, warrants interference within the contours of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. In our view, a negative answer will have to be given. We shall first deal with RCR.No.322/2011 4 the ground under Section Section 11 (4)(iii). It is well settled that the legislative intendment underlying the ground under Section 11(4)(iii) is that at a time when there is acute accommodation scarcity, even the tenant cannot be allowed the luxury of having more building than what is necessary for his purpose, so that extra or additional buildings in the possession of the tenant can be made available either to a needy landlord or to other needy tenants. The same is the position in this case. It is clear to our mind that the appreciation of the evidence by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the context of the ground under Section 11 (4)(iii) has been proper and there is no warrant for interference. 6. As already stated, Mr.Ramachandran was more persuasive in his challenge of the eviction order under Section 11 (3). The argument of the learned counsel was that it has become evident that the landlord was having other buildings wherein his son can be accommodated. But, we notice that the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are founded on evidence. We cannot say that those findings are wrong and unreasonable findings. When reasonable RCR.No.322/2011 5 findings are entered by the statutory authorities on appreciating the evidence, we will not be justified in interfering with those findings. The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk