IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 197 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.61/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM RCP.2/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------- MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, KATTUMANA HOUSE, ULLALA KARA, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONE): --------------- KURIAKOSE ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, EERASSERIL HOUSE, ULLALAKARA, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.197 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord, who was unsuccessful before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, is in revision. Eviction was sought for on the ground of sub section (3) of Section 11. Need projected was that the landlord/revision petitioner's dependent son Sri.George Mathew, who is without any employment, is to be accommodated in the petition schedule building for above business. Defending the RCP, it was contended that the version of the landlord that Sri.George Mathew is unemployed, is false. Sri.George Mathew is conducting poultry business. The landlord and the needy son were examined respectively as Pws1 and 2. Both of them swore in cross examination that the poultry business belongs to PW1. But it became evident through the cross examination that it was PW2, who had availed bank loan for faulty business. The landlord, despite offer to produce documents which will prove that the poultry business belongs to him, exclusively did not produce any such documents. It is under such circumstances, that the authorities below held that RCR.No.197/2009 2 pleaded case that the son being absolutely unemployed is false. Yet another defence was that the petition is liable to fail in view of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. This contention was concurrently answered in favour of the landlord. However, eviction was declined on the finding that the claim is not bona fide. 2. Even though Sri. K.B.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would address us very persuasively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20. We dismiss the RCR. However, we make it clear that neither this judgment nor the orders of the authorities below dismissing the RCP filed by the petitioner will stand in the way of the petitioner filing fresh petition on all available grounds including the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 provided there has been change of circumstances. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk