IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 203 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.63/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,KOZHIKODE RCP.88/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ M.K.SIYYALI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MAMMUNNI, RESIDING AT NADUVILAKANDY HOUSE, VAVAD AMSOM, ONATHUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ABDUL KALAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHERIYA MAMMAD, RESIDING AT PODUVANNIL HOUSE, KUMARANALLUR AMSOM, ANAYAMKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 602. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. This revision petition is instituted against judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the Revision Petitioner/tenant by the Rent Control Court, under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control ) Act 1965. Even though the rent control petition was filed seeking eviction under Section 11 (2) (b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) also, and eviction was ordered under Section 11 (3), 11(8) and 11(4)(iii), the Appellate Authority had confirmed the eviction only under Section 11 (8). Therefore, in this revision petition we need consider only the challenges made against the order of eviction passed under Section 11(8). 2. The landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 11(8), on the ground that he needs the space occupied by the tenant for expansion of his bakery business conducted by him in a portion of the very same RCR.No.203/2011 2 building. According to the landlord, the room occupied by him wherein the bakery business was conducted, is having only an area of 75 sq.feet and it is too insufficient for proper conduct of his business. Therefore, the landlord sought eviction of the revision petitioner so that the business in bakery conducted by him can be expanded and pursued in a more convenient manner. Evidence adduced before the Rent control Court included oral testimony of the landlord as PW1 and documents produced on behalf of him, marked as Exts.A1 to A7. In rebuttal, the revision petitioner was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of him. Exts.C1 to C4 are the court exhibits. The Trial Court reposed confidence in the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord, and found that the eviction sought for on the ground of the need for expansion of his business, is genuine and bona fide. 3. The Appellate Authority, after elaborate re-appraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Contention was raised before the Appellate Authority, giving thrust to arguments that the Rent Control Court had failed in appreciating comparative hardships as required RCR.No.203/2011 3 under Section 11(10) of the Act. The Appellate Authority found that, eventhough the Rent Control Court has not specifically considered the aspect of comparative hardships, there are clear findings with respect to availability of other buildings suitable for accommodating the business conducted by the tenant. Further it is pointed out that, the Rent Control Court had specifically found that, the revision petitioner/tenant failed in proving through any convincing evidence that he is mainly depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the tenanted premises. 4. As rightly pointed out by the Appellate Authority, the above aspects are relevant materials which need be considered while deciding the aspect of comparative hardships, as contemplated under sub section (10) of section 11. The Appellate Authority after reappraisal of the evidence with respect to the above said aspect had arrived at an independent finding that on appreciation of the relevant evidence, it is clear that the hardships which will be caused to the revision petitioner will not outweigh the advantages available to the landlord. In the attenuated jurisdiction of this court under Section 20, which is revisional in nature, we are not supposed to have a reappraisal RCR.No.203/2011 4 of the evidence on record. We do not find any material illegality, irregularity or impropriety with respect to the findings arrived by the learned Appellate Authority, which is the final fact finding court. With respect to the aspect of comparative hardship under Section 11 (10) also, we do not find any material to hold that the conclusions arrived by the Appellate Authority is in any manner illegal or erroneous. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not find any legally tenable ground warranting interference of this court invoking the revisonal jurisdiction. In the result, the revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk