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 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 405 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.21/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KASARAGOD RCP.22/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.P.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, R/A.KOTTAPPARA, PANAYAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.MARIYUMMA, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.K.A.MOOSA, R/A.KOTTAKUNNU,UDUMA VILLAGE, HOUDURG TALUK, P.O.UDUMA,KASARAGOD DIST. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 405 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady under sub section (3) of Section 11 was that she wants to conduct garment business in the petition schedule room and the adjacent rooms in the same larger building. The bona fides of the need was disputed. Though not in so many words, it was contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The tenant also claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlady herself gave evidence as PW2. Her brother- in-law was examined as PW1. The other evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A9, Exts.B1 to B3 and the oral evidence of the tenant RCR.No.405/2011 2 as RW1. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. It was also concluded that the rent control petition was not liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. It was further held that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies both the ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11 (3). 2. The tenant carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence. That authority concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 3. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the eviction order concurrently passed. Sri.T.K.Vipindas learned counsel for the revision petitioner would address very persuasive submissions before us assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel submitted that the landlady is even now having vacant possession of as many as four rooms RCR.No.405/2011 3 in the ground floor of the same building. No special reasons have been stated by the landlady as to why she is insisting on getting possession of the petition schedule room also. If there was any bona fides in the claim, the landlady should have demonstrated the same by starting garment business in the rooms which are already available with her. Even though it is true that the landlady was examined as PW2, a careful scrutiny of the evidence will show that it is PW1 brother -in- law of the petitioner who is behind the rent control petition. Even now the landlady and her husband are in Gulf. The landlady was not ready to surrender the passbook before the court. Mr.Vipindas assailed the finding of the authorities below under the second proviso also. 4. We have very anxiously considered all the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have to remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. In this revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence especially when the findings of fact entered by the fact finding authorities are concurrent and are RCR.No.405/2011 4 reasonable one based on evidence. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the findings entered therein that the need is bona fide and that the rent control petition is not liable to fail by virtue of the first and second proviso are al reasonable findings having foundation on evidence on record. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr.Vipindas that the landlady should have demonstrated her need by starting business in the rooms already under possession. The very case of the landlady in the rent control petition was that she wants to conduct a large scale garment business by utilising not only the petition schedule building, but the other rooms also. In short, we do not find any warrant for interference within the contours of this court jurisdiction under Section 20. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk RCR.No.405/2011 5