IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 RCRev..No. 481 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.115/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE-III RCP.67/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- P.SASIDHARAN, AGED 59 S/O.PUTHUKKUDIKKANDI SUBRAMANIAN, PUTHUMA, KONOTH PARAMBA NELLIKODE AMSOM, P.O. NELLIKODE KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- 1. VAZHUTHINAPATTA SAROJINI, W/O. GOPALAN NAIR . NELLKODE AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R No.481 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under Section 11 (3). In fact, the landlady had invoked the ground under Section 11 (4)(ii) also. But, eviction sought on that ground was declined by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority and it appears to us that the above order has become final. We, therefore, need have to be concerned only with the ground under Section 11(3). 2. The need projected by the landlady was the need for her own occupation. According to her, she let out the petition schedule building to the revision petitioner at a time when she was suffering from several ailments and she had taken shelter in her daughter's house. Now she has completely recovered from the ailments and she wants to start her own independent RCR No.481 /2011 2 residence in the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that the rent control petition was liable to fail by virtue of 1st proviso sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlady herself mounted the box and gave oral evidence in support of her claim under section 11(3). Her evidence was very inspiring to the Rent Control Court. On evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide and that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. 3. The tenant carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and that authority also would concur with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the revision petition assailing the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate RCR No.481 /2011 3 Authority. According to the learned Counsel, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is tainted by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties. The landlady was very happily put up with her daughter and the need presently projected is only a ruse to evict the tenant. The findings entered in favour of the landlady in the context of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 is also not correct, so submitted the learned counsel. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent control Court. The only question, which arises for decision, is whether there is any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority within the well delineated contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. It is reasonable findings which have been entered by the Rent Control Court in the context of the bona fides of the need as well as in the context of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory final fact finding RCR No.481 /2011 4 authority, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence and substitute those factual findings by fresh findings The revision necessarily has to fail and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR No.481 /2011 5 RCR No.481 /2011 6 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R NO. 481 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. After our decision was made known to Sri.Bindu Sasthamangalam the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he requested that at least a year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. According to us, we will not be justified in granting so much of time without issuing notice to the landlord. Hence issue notice by speed post to the respondent/landlord to determine the duration of time to be given to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. I.A. No.3063/2011 RCR No.481 /2011 7 The execution proceedings will stand stayed for a period of two months. Post after service of notice. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR No.481 /2011 8