IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 RCRev..No. 198 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.36/2006 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.7/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ V.M.KRISHNAN S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, DHARAKAYIL, PANANGAD AMSOM NIRMALLOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------- AACHAMPARAMBATH A.P.BALAN S/O.CHERUKUNHAN, 'KOUSTHUBHAM' THRIKUTTISSERY AMSOM, VAKAYAD DESOM OF KOYILANDY TALUK. BY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A. NO.1828/2008 DISMISSED 11/8/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.198 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. This revision petition is filed by the tenant, aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority confirming the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court. Eviction was sought under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the alleged need set up by the landlord is not a bonafide one. It was also contended that the findings rendered by the authorities below regarding the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act are erroneous. 3. The landlord sought eviction of the tenanted premises on the ground that he is a Gulf returnee and after he came back, he has no job or avocation. He wanted to start a hotel business in the petition schedule building for eking out his livelihood. He has got sufficient experience to run hotel business. The contention raised by the tenant as regards the bonafide need is that the landlord is very rich and hence he has no intention RCR 198/2008 -2- to start the business for which eviction is sought. It was also contended that the tenant is depending mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building for his livelihood. 4. The authorities below have analysed the oral and documentary evidence while rendering findings in favour of the landlord. The landlord came back to India in October 2002 after losing his job in Gulf countries. That the landlord has come back and is presently in India, is not at all disputed by the tenant. The evidence shows that he has no other employment also. Even though the tenant contended that the landlord is a wealthy person and has no intention to start a business, no evidence is available in support of the said plea. In fact, it cannot be said that even in such a case he cannot take steps to augment his income by conducting a suitable business. 5. The Appellate Authority has also considered the evidence in detail and found that the need set up by the landlord is genuine. It was found that it is honest desire on the part of the landlord to have an avocation of his own and the contention that he is very rich, was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. 6. Even though the tenant had contended that the landlord has other buildings vacant in his possession to start the business, and that the eviction RCR 198/2008 -3- sought is hit by the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, no such evidence was adduced. The only other room that belongs to the landlord is a small one which was rented out to another tenant for running a telephone booth. Another residential building has been rented out to one Sekharan and hence the same is also not available. As regards the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the evidence shows that the tenant has landed properties with him from which he is getting income. The tenant did not adduce any evidence by way of production of accounts, etc. to show the actual income that he is getting from the hotel business. Therefore, the finding on that aspect went against the tenant. As regards the availability of other buildings in the locality to shift the business, the tenant has not adduced any evidence to discharge the burden of proof on that aspect also. 7. We find that the authorities below have correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act. The eviction sought under Section 11(2)(b) for arrears of rent was also allowed and the said finding does not require any interference. Even though it was contended that a portion of the rent was paid to the wife of the landlord no receipt was produced in support of it. At any rate, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the RCR 198/2008 -4- authorities below. It cannot be said that the view taken is so perverse warranting interference. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to vacate the premises. We grant four months time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises on condition that he files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally on or before the expiry of four months from today and also to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, due within three weeks from today and continue to pay the monthly rent till the premises are vacated. The affidavit shall be filed within the above said period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall continue to pay an amount equivalent to the rent payable, towards compensation for use and occupation, till possession is surrendered. If any of the conditions aforesaid is violated, then the order of eviction will become enforceable at once. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/