IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No.118 of 2010 (E) ------------------------------ RCA.149/2008 of II ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.48/2007 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- MAROLLI KRISHNAN, S/O.KANARAKUTTY AGED 68 YEARS, TP 9/559. "MAROLI" PURAKKATTIRI BAZAR, POST THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- P.T.YUSUF, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN HAJI AGED 53 YEARS, PUTHUKUDY THAZHAM HOUSE PURAKKATTIRI, POST THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. The landlord sought to evict him on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3). It is conceded by both sides that in this revision we need be concerned only with the order of eviction concurrently passed against the revision petitioner on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord was that the landlord is presently conducting business in a building belonging to the landlord's brother one R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -2- Sri.P.T.Mohammed and that Sri.P.T.Mohammed has requested the landlord to vacate the premises. The landlord does not have any other building owned by him in his possession than the petition schedule building and hence the landlord is in need of the petition schedule building. Bona fides of the claim was disputed by the revision petitioner who contended that the real motive behind instituting the RCP is to extract higher rent. It was also contended that the RCP was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 since the landlord was having possession of four other rooms having Door Nos.T.P.10/398, 10/399, 10/400 and 9/562. It was further contended that at any rate, the tenant was entitled to the protection of the second R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -3- proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the RCP and at trial the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of the landlord as PW1 and that of the tenant as RW1. The documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B3 apart from Ext.C1 Commissioner's Report and Ext.C2 Commissioner's Plan. The learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of PW1 was inspiring and would hold that the need was bona fide. As regards the first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 that court found that the tenant was unsuccessful in adducing any evidence to show that the landlord was in possession of any of the four rooms. Coming to the question whether the tenant is R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -4- entitled to the protection of the second proviso it was held that since the tenant's evidence was that he is getting Rs.200/- per mensem from the tailoring work carried on by him in the petition schedule building. It was apparent that the landlord was depending on other sources also including the salary of his son who was a Government employee. Taking that view of the matter it was held that the first limb of the second proviso was not satisfied. On the basis of that finding it was held that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso at all. 2. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner, reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -5- Accordingly, order of eviction was confirmed and RCA was dismissed. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. All the submissions of Sri.Madhavanunni were resisted by Advocate Sri.R.Sudhish for the respondent/landlord. Sri.Madhavanunni submitted that the revision petitioner is prepared to offer very attractive hike in the rent which is presently paid by him. But Sri.Sudhish submitted that since the need is an extremely bona fide one, the landlord is not R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -6- willing to allow the tenant to continue as a tenant in the building even if an attractive rent is offered. Sri.Madhavanunni would then request for grant of one year's time. This request is also opposed by Sri.Sudhish. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Under the scheme of the Rent Control Act, the final fact finding court is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. When the findings entered by the Appellate Authority are reasonable and are founded on evidence this Court will not be justified in interfering with those finding within the R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -7- contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the finding entered therein confirming similar finding entered by the Rent Control Court that the need is bona fide is founded on very convincing oral evidence given by PW1. 5. The same is the position regarding the finding that the RCP is not liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso. Though the tenant contended that the landlord was having vacant possession of as many as four rooms he was unsuccessful in adducing any evidence to show that the landlord was having possession of at least room No.9/562 which was admitted by the landlord to be owned by him. Though a commission was taken out, the Commissioner was never taken to room No.9/562 R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -8- at all. We do not find any infirmity about the finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso. The finding that the revision petitioner is getting Rs.200/- per mensem from the tailoring work carried on by him in the petition schedule building and the landlord was depending on other sources also including the salary of his son who is a Government employee is a reasonable finding. We do not find any warrant for interference. 6. The result of the RCR is therefore, as follows:- The RCR has to fail and will stand dismissed. However, we feel that notwithstanding opposition of Sri.Sudhish, the revision petitioner can be granted time till 31/01/11 to surrender the R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -9- premises subject to certain conditions. Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR without any order as to costs we direct the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the building in question till 31/01/11 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit containing an undertaking to the effect before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, within ten days from today that he will give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 31/01/11. It shall also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid without fail till he surrenders the R. C. R. No.118 of 2010 -10- building. We make it clear that unless the affidavit as ordered above is filed on time, the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-