IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 385 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.37/2003 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY THRISSUR RCP.65/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- SMT.MARY, W/O. CHAZHOOR LAZER, ST.THOMAS NAGER, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- DIYON, S/O. MANAVALAN JOSEPH GANDHI NAGAR PERINGAVU VILLAGE, DESOM THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 385 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court against the revision petitioner on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub section (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The respondent landlord invoked the ground of sub letting also. But, the learned rent control court declined that ground and that order has become final. We in this revision, therefore, need be concerned only with the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlord was a minor at the time of commencement of the rent control petition and he has now attained majority. The need projected by him was that he wants to occupy the petition building as his father passed away and as he is bound to look after his mother and two unmarried sisters and as he has no source of income with which he can support RCR.No.385/2010 2 the family. He claimed that the building is required for the purpose of conducting telephone booth and business in fast food and bakery. 2. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioner tenant. It was contended that the original landlord, the respondent's father, sold away seven rooms belonging to him and that if the need projected was bona fide, he could have utilised any one of those rooms for the purpose of accomplishing the need. It was alleged that the very intention of seeking eviction is to sell the petition schedule building also after securing eviction. The tenant also claimed that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and that she is entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. The rent control petition went for trial and in the enquiry, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A3, Exts.B1 to B11 series, Ext.C2 commission report and the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2. PW1 was the mother of the landlord and RW1 was the son of the tenant. The evidence adduced on the side of the landlord inspired the rent control court very much and it was RCR.No.385/2010 3 found that the need projected is bona fide. It was also found by the rent control court, on evaluating the evidence which came on record, that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that she satisfies either of the two ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. 4. The rent control appellate authority considered RCA No.37/2003 filed by the revision petitioner. That authority made a through reappraisal of the entire evidence and would concur with all the conclusions of the rent control court in the context of ground under Section 11 (3). 5. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri.Jijo Paul learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us on the basis of all those grounds. The learned counsel highlighted the conduct of the respondent's father in selling away seven rooms which belong to him. According to Mr.Jijo Paul, if there was an element of bona fide in the need projected, at least one of those rooms, which were vacant, could have been utilised for the purpose now projected . The learned counsel would attack RCR.No.385/2010 4 the finding of the statutory authorities regarding the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. According to the learned counsel, under that proviso the statutory authorities are expected to consider the question whether the tenant is depending mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in the petition schedule building. In the instant case, the enquiry was not in that direction. What is found is that the tenant would be looked after by her son. On account of this misdirection, the order of the statutory authorities has become tainted. 6. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.Jijo Paul. We have gone through the judgment of the appellate authority and considered the order of the rent control court. The jurisdiction, in which we are presently sitting, is revisional in nature. In this jurisdiction, we are not expected ordinarily to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting the factual conclusions arrived at by the fact finding authorities, particularly when they are concurrent and founded on evidence. On going through the judgment of the appellate authority, we are convinced that all the findings entered RCR.No.385/2010 5 therein by that authority on facts are founded on evidence. We are of the view that those findings are reasonable findings. It was not the present landlord or his mother who sold away the seven rooms. The sale was conducted by the father of the present landlord at a time when he was alive. It is the bona fides of the need of the present landlord which is to be enquired into. According to us, the bona fides of the present need will not be affected by any conduct on the part of the formal landlord. We are not impressed either by the submissions of the learned counsel against the finding on the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. It is trite that in order that the first ingredient of the second proviso is satisfied, the enquiry is only whether the income derived from the petition schedule building accounts for the main source of livelihood of the tenant. If there is evidence to hold that the tenant is having other source of livelihood including constant support from her family members, the statutory authorities will be justified in saying that the income from the petition schedule building is not the only sources of livelihood. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged RCR.No.385/2010 6 by section 20 about the judgment of the appellate authority. 7. The revision petition is liable to fail and will stand dismissed. However, considering the fervent appeal of Sri.Jijo Paul for granting of time, we are inclined to grant to the revision petitioner time till 30/6/2011 to surrender the petition schedule premises to the respondent landlord subject to certain conditions. 8. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follows; i). The revision petition is dismissed and eviction order passed under section 11 (3) is confirmed. ii). The Execution Court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery of the petition schedule building till 30/6/2011 subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petitions schedule building to the landlord on or before 30/6/2011 and undertaking further through the same affidavit that arrears of RCR.No.385/2010 7 rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and that with effect from 1/1/2011 till actual surrender is made, occupational charges at the rate of 130/- per month will be paid. The revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if she files the affidavit on time and honours all the undertakings in the affidavit. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk