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 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 239 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.26/2008 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.52/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.RAKAMRISHNA PILLAI,S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI AGED 52 YEARS, T.C.NO.38/1143,GANESH STORES, SABAPATHY COIL STREET,CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.GANESAN, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI AGED 40 YEARS, T.C.NO.38/1142,LEKSHMI TRADERS, SABAPATHY COIL STREET,CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------ P.PAZHANIVINAYAGAM,S/O.LATE N.T.PONNAMBALAM PILLAI,AGED 42 YEARS,RESIDING AT T.C.NO.38/1140, SABAPATHY COIL STREET, CHAILAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 ORDER Abdul Rehim, J Tenants in a Rent Control Petition against whom order of eviction was issued under Section 11(3) and Section 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is in revision. Eviction was sought for by the landlord projecting the need that the petition schedule building is bonafide needed for conducting provision store business. It is admitted by the landlord that eventhough he is having small shop rooms in a row building, those are in occupation of other tenants and hence not available for R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -2- accomplishing the need. It is further admitted that the landlord is residing in a portion of building bearing Door No.38/1140 and in another portion of the said building his wife is conducting business under the name and style “Raja Traders”. With respect to ground for eviction under Section 11(4) (iii), the landlord contended that the first revision petitioner is conducting two provisional stores; one at the same area and another one at Karamana, and that those buildings are sufficient for the tenants to carry on their business. 2. The Rent Control Petition was resisted by the tenants contending that they are conducting business in the petition schedule room for the last twenty years and that the need now projected by the landlord is not bonafide and genuine. It was R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -3- contended that the landlord and his family members own more than a dozen shop rooms in the same locality, some of which are lying vacant and there is no bonafides in the demand for eviction. The tenants also sought protection from eviction under the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 on the ground that the income derived out of the business conducted in the petition schedule building is their sole means of livelihood and that no other suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting the business. The tenant also emphatically denied that they are in possession of any other rooms as alleged by the landlord, which is sufficient for conduct of the business now being carried on in the scheduled building. R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -4- 3. Evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of oral testimony of the landlord as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. Evidence from the side of the tenants consisted of oral testimony of CPW1 and CPW2 and Exts.B1 to B16 series documents marked. Report of the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the need urged by the landlord for own occupation is most genuine and bonafide. It was also found that the tenants were not successful in proving that the landlord is having vacant possession of any other room suitable for accomplishing the need projected. It is further found that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -5- Section 3 of Section 11, because they were not successful in proving that the income derived out of the business is their sole means of livelihood. It is found that there is availability of other buildings in the locality. 4. With respect to eviction sought for under Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court found that the tenant is the owner of building bearing T.C. No.38/1180 and that they were not successful in proving through any satisfactory evidence negativing availability of such a building in their possession. Hence, eviction was ordered both under Section 11(3) and under Section 11(4)(iii). 5. The Appellate Authority after a total reappraisal of the evidence on record, concurred with the Rent Control Court. It is noticed that the R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -6- landlord has disclosed availability of building bearing T.C. No.38/1140. But it has come out in evidence that the landlord is residing in a portion of the said building and that his wife is conducting business by name “Raja Traders” in the remaining portion. Eventhough evidence was let in to the effect that a portion of the building bearing T.C. No.38/1140 is used for stocking salt in connection with a partnership business carried on in T.C.38/1136, under the name and style “Raja Traders” by the younger brother of the landlord and his wife, the same will not in any manner discard findings of the Rent Control Court that there is no building available in the possession of the landlord for accomplishing the need. Referring to the facts reported in Ext.C1 commission report R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -7- the learned Appellate Authority observed that the fact situation prevailed in the case will not lead to any inference that the landlord was having vacant possession of any room suitable for starting the business proposed. It is also found that the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Control Court in relation to second proviso to Section 11(3) need not be interfered with. Finding that the tenants were not successful in proving through any cogent evidence that they are not in possession of the building pointed out by the landlord, the Appellate Authority found that the ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) was also established. It is specifically found that the tenants have failed in discharging their obligation in satisfying the court that the building pointed out by the landlord is not R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -8- reasonably sufficient for shifting of the business conducted in the petition schedule room. Hence, the eviction on both grounds were upheld by the Appellate Authority. 6. Sri.M.Ramaswamy Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners have addressed serious and vehement arguments assailing the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below. According to him, the landlord is having a lot of business and he is having so many rooms in custody in the very same locality, some of which are lying vacant. Therefore, the need projected is only a ruse to evict the revision petitioner, and that the same is not at all bona fide, is the contention. It is also contended that the findings under Section 11(4)(iii) regarding R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -9- availability of other buildings in the occupation of the tenant is not factually correct. It is contended that there is total mis-appreciation of the evidence. 7. In the statutory scheme of the Rent Control Act, the Appellate Authority is the final fact finding court. In the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 20 of the Act, we are not supposed to have a total reappraisal of the evidence. The revision petitioners could not point out any specific piece of evidence which has omitted appreciation of the courts below nor any manifest mis-appreciation with respect to any particular piece of evidence. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as order of eviction R. C. R. No.239 of 2010 -10- passed by the Rent Control Court, we find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference in any manner. The revision petition deserves no merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-