IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 115 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.40/1998 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.70/1997 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUBHADRA, T.C.27/933, SREE DEVI MANDIRAM, RISHIMANGALAM WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. S.SREELATHA, T.C.27/933, SREE DEVI MANDIRAM, RISHIMANGALAM WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.G.GIRISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- SYED ABDULLAH BAFAKI THANGAL, ABEES A1 ARAB TRAVELS, T.C.27/2368, CONVENT LANE, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-2-2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 115 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. No representation for the revision petitioner. The revision petitioners are the landladies. Eviction was sought for on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3). Arrears of rent was discharged during the pendency of the RCP. The ground of arrears of rent was therefore not pressed. The need projected under Section 11(3) was the need of the daughter of one of the landladies to conduct a beauty parlour as well as telephone booth. The statutory authorities found the need to be bona fide. However, it was also found that there are 16 rooms in a larger building belonging to the landladies and that the landladies' version that all the rooms had been let out to Lakshmy Hotel is not RCR.115/06 -2- supported by evidence. The statutory authorities have also found that the tenant is entitled to protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). We feel that the finding that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 is entered without considering the binding judicial precedents such as Francis v. Sreedevi Varassier, 2003(2) KLT 230 (F.B), Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman, 2007(3) KLT 99 (SC). But as far as the finding that the RCP is liable to be rejected by virtue of first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11, we find that the same is founded on evidence. We don't find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about that finding. The RCR will stand dismissed. This judgment, however, will not stand in the way of the landladies seeking eviction of the tenant on grounds which are available at present including the ground under Section 11(3) if the circumstances have changed. It RCR.115/06 -3- is also open to the landladies to move the Rent Control Court under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent if they feel that the rent paid by the tenant is inadequate. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ksv/-