IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 537 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.141/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY RCP.168/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONERS/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5/LRS OF -------------------- 1. K.K.RADHA, D/O.KALLIANI, PALISSERY, NEAR POLICE QUARTERS, THALASSERY AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, P.O.THALASSERY, DT.KANNUR. 2. K.K.SUSHEELA,DO. DO. 3. K.K.RAMACHANDRAN ALIAS RAVEENDRAN, SON OF KALLIANI, DO. DO. 4. K.K.CHANDRAMATHI, D/O.KALLIANI, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SMT.VIDHYA. A.C RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------- C.V.UMMATHA UMMA, W/O.AHMED, AGED 52 YEARS, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, DIST.KANNUR. ADV. SRI.C.KHALID FOR R1 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R1 SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM FOR R1 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.3169/2005 IN RCR.537/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 10.8.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.537 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2/1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction of revision petitioners under Section 11(3) in reversal of the decision of the Rent Control Court dismissing the application for eviction under that ground. The need projected by the landlady was that she needs the petition schedule building, a residential building, for conducting tailoring business. The bonafides of the need was strongly disputed by the revision petitioners who are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. It was contended that the landlady belongs to a rich and aristocratic Muslim family and that it is very unlikely that there is necessity for the landlady to conduct tailoring business. It was also contended that it is unlikely that the landlady will, having regard to her social and family background do business of tailoring. It was pointed out that the landlady had initiated earlier unsuccessful proceeding for eviction and the present proceeding is a continuation of such RCR.537/05 2 proceedings. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial the landlady herself gave evidence as PW1. The contentions of the tenants found favour with the Rent Control Court. That court took the view that it is highly unlikely that the landlady who belongs to one of the most aristocratic Muslim families of North Malabar will do small time business of tailoring in the petition schedule building. It was noticed that the landlady's husband himself was a rich man owning several buildings. The Rent Control Petition was accordingly dismissed by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence under the impugned judgment and interfered with the decision of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction. 2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised by the revision petitioners assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Smt.A.C. Vidhya, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments on the basis of all those grounds. She drew our attention to the various aspects of the evidence which is on record. She submitted that the need projected by the landlady does not involve an element of necessity. In this context she referred to landlady's oral evidence which is to the effect that it RCR.537/05 3 is to get rid of boredom that the landlady is thinking in terms of doing tailoring business. Smt. Vidhya argued that unless there is an element of necessity the statutory authorities are not expected to uphold the need under Section 11(3). 3. All the submissions of Smt.Vidhya were resisted by Sri.T.P.Sajid, learned counsel for the respondent. He would support the impugned judgment on the basis of the reasons stated by the learned Appellate Authority. According to Mr. Sajid, the final authority on facts under the statutory scheme is the Rent Control Court and there is no warrant for interference. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar in the light of the statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents. As rightly argued by Mr. Sajid, when the Appellate Authority gives a reasoned decision which is founded on evidence, this court must be slow in setting aside the decision of the Appellate Authority. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority by the parameters which are applicable to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 we do not find scope for interference. The Appellate Authority has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the Rent Control Court on almost every aspect of the matter. It was appreciating the evidence of the RCR.537/05 4 landlady that the Appellate Authority entered the finding that her need is bonafide. Having gone through the evidence, we do not find any dent made in cross-examination to the credibility of AW1. In short, we do not find warrant for interference. However, we feel that there is justification for granting an unduly long period of time to the revision petitioners to surrender the petition schedule building. Result of the above discussion is as follows: We confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the R.C.R. We direct the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 31.12.2011 subject to the following conditions: Rent will stand re-fixed with effect from 1.9.2010 at Rs.100/- per mensem. The first revision petitioner shall on her behalf and on behalf of other revision petitioners file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent on or before 31.12.2011 and also undertaking through the same affidavit that they will clear off the rent in arrears within one month and will pay occupational charges at RCR.537/05 5 the current rent rate with effect from 1.9.2010. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of the time granted by this order only if the affidavit is filed on time. R.C.R is dismissed without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb