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 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 367 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.171/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.9/1997 of RENT CONTROL COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS (S): -------------------- 1. NELLOLI PADMINI, W/O. LATE BALAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, KAVUMBHAGAM DESOM, THALASSERY. 2. SUJA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. LATE BALAN, RESIDING DO. 3. SHEEJA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. LATE BALAN RESIDING DO. 4. SHAJI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O. LATE BALAN RESIDING DO 5. SANOOP, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. LATE BALAN RESIDING DO BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- N.P. LATHA, D/O. LATE UTHAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDGING AT REAL HOUSE, CHOVVA, KANNUR 67006 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 367 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants being the legal heirs of the deceased tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. Though the respondent/landlady had invoked the ground of arrears of rent also, the above ground was not pursued in view of the filing of a subsequent rent control petition on the above ground. 2. The need projected by the landlady was that the building is required for occupation by her dependent son who was examined as PW1. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners who contended that at any rate they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The oral evidence adduced by the PW1, the dependent son, inspired the Rent Control Court very much. RCR.No.367/2011 2 Accordingly, the court found that the need is bona fide. The Rent Control Court further found that the revision petitioners were unsuccessful in proving that they satisfy the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, eviction order was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. The revision petitioner preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority and we have heard Sri.Cibi Thomas learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu learned counsel for the respondent/landlady who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of this revision petition. Though Mr.Cibi Thomas addressed submissions on all the grounds raised in the revision petition, the learned counsel gave more thrust in his submission to the argument that the condition of the building was so hopelessly dilapidated that it will not be possible for the landlady's son RCR.No.367/2011 3 (PW1) to start the sophisticated activity of running a computer centre therein. Mr.Premachandra Prabhu learned counsel for the respondent would resist all the submissions of Mr.Cibi Thomas. The learned counsel reminded us of the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that within those contours there is no warrant for interference. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We remind ourselves of the limited nature of this jurisdiction under section 20 which is revisional. We find, on going through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, that the findings entered therein in concurrence with similar findings entered by the Rent Control Court are founded on evidence. We also find that they are reasonable findings. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory facts finding authorities based on evidence, this court in revision should be slow to interfere with those findings. It became evident that PW1 was working in a private computer centre. When such a person comes forward with a case that he wants to start his own computer centre in a building belonging to his mother, such a need can be accepted to be prima facie bona RCR.No.367/2011 4 fide. No oblique motives were attributed and much less proved to show that the need is not bona fide. The fact finding authorities, in our view, have come to the right conclusion that the need is bona fide. It is fairly settled by various decisions of this court and the Supreme Court including the judgment in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003 (2) KLT 230) and the Judgment of the Supreme Court Kunhamma v. Akkali Purushothaman (2007 (3) KLT 599 (SC) that the burden to show that the tenant satisfies both the ingredients of the second proviso is on the tenant himself. Such burden has not been discharged in this case. 6. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. 7. After our decision was made known to Mr. Cibi Thomas, learned counsel requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. The above request was opposed by Mr.Premachandra Prabhu who pointed out that the litigations started in 1997. The learned counsel also submitted that the rent is heavily in arrears. Despite opposition of the learned counsel for the landlord, we RCR.No.367/2011 5 feel that there is justification for granting to the petitioner 9 months time from today for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, even as we confirm the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority and dismiss the revision petition, there will be a direction to the Execution Court to keep in abeyance all proceedings for delivery of the building to the respondent/landlady till 30/6/2012 subject to the following conditions; The first revision petitioner representing herself and other revision petitioners will 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 possession of the building to the respondent/landlady on or before 30/6/2012 and undertaking further to discharge entire arrears of rent due as on today as per the findings of the Rent Control Court in the subsequently instituted Rent Control Petition and undertaking further to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs.250/- per month promptly till such time the actual surrender of the building is made. RCR.No.367/2011 6 The Revision Petitioners will get benefit of time allowed as above only if affidavit is filed on time and undertakings therein are hounoured. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk