IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No.2837 of 2002 (A) ---------------------------- RCA.12/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.19/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, MACHINGAL HOUSE, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- NARENDRAN, S/O.THRIKKUNNATH RAVUNNI, PROPRIETOR KERALA JEWELLERY MACHINGAL BUILDINGS, SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNDAMUKA AMSOM, SHORNUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P. No.2837 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The revision petitioner, an Advocate is aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently declining eviction sought for on the ground of own occupation i.e. for the purpose of starting his professional office. Even though, Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very strenuously and persuasively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of civil revision petition and we were taken extensively through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are not persuaded to hold that the C. R. P. No.2837 of 2002 -2- judgment of the Appellate Authority which is the final court on facts under the statutory scheme suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The finding of the courts below that the need is not bona fide, is founded on evidence which is actually available on record. Therefore, we do not find way to interfere with the judgment of the appellate authority or the order of the Rent Control Court. But we notice that the current rent of Rs.2,000/- per month being paid by the respondent/tenant for the petition schedule building was fixed in 1993. The building is situated in the heart of Shornur town and we feel that the current rent is far below the fair rent for the building. We therefore, tentatively re-fix the rent payable by the respondent at Rs.3,500/- prospectively with effect from 1st of C. R. P. No.2837 of 2002 -3- August, 2009. It is made clear that this tentative re- fixation made by us is without prejudice to the right of either of the parties to move the competent court for fixation of the fair rent of the building. The result, therefore is that; 1) The CRP is dismissed. 2) The monthly rent payable by the respondent is re-fixed at Rs.3,500/- with effect from 01/08/2009. 3) The parties will suffer their costs in this revision. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-