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 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 498 of 2005(D) ------------------------ RCA.122/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE RCP.29/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY .................... REV. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. KUNIYIL ASSYA UMMA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.MOOSA HAJI, (THOTTOMKANDI), VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. ABDULLA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. SUBAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. AMINA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.MOOSA HAJI, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 5. MOIDEEN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 6. MUHAMMADALI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 7. IBRAHIM, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI (NOW IN GULF), VANMUGHAM AMSOM, VIMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RCR.498/05 2 RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, CHETTIYADATH POYIL, S/O.UNNARA, MOODADI AMSOM, VELLARAKKAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R NO REPRESENTATION FOR REVISION PETITIONERS TODAY ALSO. R.C.R IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 3.8.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlords/ revision petitioners is the judgment of the Rent Control Court finding that the apposite eviction ground which may be available to the revision petitioners is the one under Section 11(8) and the finding further that the evidence adduced by them falls short of holding that such an eviction ground is established. Under the impugned judgment after finding that ground under Section 11(8) is not established, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenants are not entitled for the benefit of the proviso to sub Section 10 of Section 11. In other words, the finding is that the hardship which may be R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 -2- occasioned to the tenants by order of eviction to be passed will not outweigh the advantage which the landlords may gain out of the order of eviction. We notice that this is a case where the Rent Control Court had passed a composite order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(8). The Appellate Authority found that such a composite order cannot be passed and order of eviction if at all can be passed is only under Section 11(8). 2. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the findings of the Appellate Authority, except the finding regarding the proviso to sub Section 10 of Section 11. Sri.Manjeri Sunder Raj, the learned counsel of the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. Even though Sri.Manjeri Sunder Raj was persuasive in his submissions and we were taken through the entire judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 -3- find way to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Under the statutory scheme, the final court on facts is the Appellate Authority. As we go through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered therein that the landlords have not established by cogent evidence that they have a genuine need for additional accommodation is founded on evidence including circumstantial evidence. It was noticed that no document at all was produced to support the revision petitioners' claim that several employees are working in their business by name “Silk Palace” and that there are lady employees and the further claim that for want of proper rest room and lunch room the lady employees are suffering. The Appellate Authority also noticed that the landladies did not make any serious endeavour to prove their case that some R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 -4- of them are personally attending to the business of “Silk Palace” by examining any one among them. According to us, the finding that the ground under Section 11(8) is not established cannot be said to be improper. On the question as to which is the apposite eviction ground applicable - Section 11(3) or Section 11(8), it is very clear to our mind that on the facts which obtain in this case, the apposite eviction ground which is available to the landladies is the ground under Section 11(8). That finding of the Appellate Authority also does not warrant interference. The finding that the tenants are not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 11(10) in our view is a correct finding which is not even challenged by the tenants. We confirm that finding. 3. We notice yet another aspect of the matter. The monthly rent of Rs.140/- which is being paid by the R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 -5- respondent to the revision petitioners was fixed way back in 1986/-. It is not disputed that the building is situated in a very important area of Koyilandy town in close proximity to the court complex at Koyilandy. We are sure that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch at least Rs.500/- per mensem. We are therefore, inclined to re-fix the rent payable by the respondent at Rs.500/- per mensem with effect from 01/02/11. It is accordingly, re-fixed. This re-fixation will operate till fair rent of the building is fixed by the Rent Control Court at the instance of either party. 4. The result of the above discussion is that the RCR will stand dismissed confirming the finding that the tenant is not entitled for the benefit of the proviso to Section 11(10). Rent payable by the respondent is re-fixed with effect from 01/02/11 at Rs.500/- per mensem. We will also clarify that this judgment will not preclude the revision petitioners from R. C. R. No.498 of 2005 -6- moving the Rent Control Court again for evicting the respondent on all available grounds including the ground under Section 11(8) itself. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-