IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 327 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.1/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY ,THODUPUZHA RCOP.2/2009 of RENT CONTROL .COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT : -------------------- LEELAMMA,W/O. LATE CHACKO, MUKKATT HOUSE CHAMAPATHEL KARA, UZHAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT HARIKRISHNA BUILDING NO.450, WARD NO.XVI, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA EAST PO, THODUPUZHA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- RAVEENDRANATHAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, NJARALAKATTU HOUSE VADAKKUMMURY KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE THODUPUZHA EAST PO, THODUPUZHA TALUK 685 585. BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN BY DOMSON.J.VATTAKKUZHY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R No. 327 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected was that the landlord wants to accommodate his married daughter Smt.Anjulakshmi in the ground floor portion of a double storied building a portion of which is the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was contended that it is with oblique motive that the landlord is seeking eviction. It was contended that after the institution of the rent control petition, a building having door number 16/449 was vacated by one Shiny, the tenant in occupation of that building, and the said building was let out to one Reji Mathew a PWD contractor in the year August 2010 and this RCR .No.327/2011 2 circumstance will indicate that the claim is bereft of bona fides. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and on evaluating the evidence, which consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, Exts.B1 and B2, oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 and DW1 & DW2, would hold that the need is bona fide. It was also held that the circumstance that the building occupied by the tenant by name Shiny had vacated and the same building had been let to one PWD contractor will not affect the bona fides of the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. Another circumstance which was highlighted before the Rent Control Court was that the other portion of the ground floor of the larger building is occupied by another tenant and no proceedings had been initiated by the landlord for evicting that tenant. The Rent Control Court would in this context accept the explanation of the landlord that the other tenant had agreed to vacate any time. Thus repelling the contentions, eviction order was passed under Section 11(3). 2. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal as RCA No.1/2010. In the RCA separate application (I.A. No.29/2011) was filed seeking a direction to the landlord to produce rent RCR .No.327/2011 3 agreement which the landlord had entered into with Reji Mathew PWD contractor in respect of the building having door No.16/449. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the above I.A. as well as the appeal after making a reappraisal of the evidence and concurring with the findings of the Rent Control Court. 3. In this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Mathew Skaria learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments based on those grounds. At the time of admission, the one point, which was highlighted before us by Mr.Mathew Skaria, was that the landlord who wanted to accommodate his daughter in the larger building had not initiated any proceedings for evicting the other tenants in occupation of other portion of the building. Noticing some merit prima facie in the above submission, we directed Sri. Mathew John, Advocate who had already lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent landlord, to enquire of the respondent as to whether he will be ready to suffer a direction that eviction order which is impugned in the RCR will be put to execution only after the tenants in occupation RCR .No.327/2011 4 of the other portions of the larger building have vacated. Today Sri.Mathew John submitted that the need projected is not the need to accommodate the landlord's daughter in the entire larger building. The need projected is to accommodate her only in the ground floor portion of the larger building where there is one more tenant is in occupation and it is on a temporary arrangement that the other tenant occupies that portion and there will not be any difficulty for the landlord to get back vacant possession of that portion. 4. Even though Sri. Mathew Skaria learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous and persuasive submissions based on the various grounds, we do not find any ground to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 on the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Before us also, it was argued that the landlord has not initiated any proceedings for evicting the other tenants in occupation of other portions of the building. We are convinced that the need projected is to accommodate Smt.Anjulakshmi only in the ground floor. We are incorporating in this order conditions which will remove the apprehension in the mind of the revision petitioner that after RCR .No.327/2011 5 evicting her, the respondent's daughter will not occupy the building at all. Yet another point, which was highlighted before us, is that if the need was bona fide building having Door No. 16/449 vacated by Smt.Shiny could not have been let out to Raji Mathew PWD contractor. According to us, the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the above building was vacated much prior to the commencement of the present proceedings and the further finding that the landlord had special reason to insist on accommodating his daughter in the ground floor portion of the building, a portion of which is the petition schedule building, are reasonable findings founded on evidence available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory fact finding authority based on evidence on record, this court will not not be able to interfere with those findings. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 in the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 5. After our decision was known to Mr.Mathew Skaria, he requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision RCR .No.327/2011 6 petitioner for surrendering the premises. This request was opposed very stiffly by Mr.Mathew John. He submitted that for accommodating the petitioner, who is a widow, her brother has purchased another building not far away from the petition schedule building. But, the petitioner is unnecessarily clinging to the petition schedule building. The stiffness of the opposition notwithstanding, we feel that reasonable time can be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. Accordingly, even as we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision petition, we direct the Execution Court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 31/3/2012 subject to the following condition; 6. The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking as follows; i) That she will discharge arrears of rent due in respect of the building as on today within six weeks from today and produce receipt. ii) That she will give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 31/3/2012. RCR .No.327/2011 7 iii) That she will pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs.2,000/- per month till such time she surrenders the building. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted as above only if she files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings therein. There will be a further direction that coercive process will be issued by the Execution Court for evicting the petitioner only after ensuring that the occupant of the other portion of the ground floor has vacated. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk