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 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 184 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.54/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , ERNAKULAM RCP.3/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ANTONY KURUVILA S/O KURUVILA, AGED 42 YEARS, SANKUNKAL HOUSE, NARAKKAL VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. ITTOOP, S/O.KURUVILA,AGED 52 YEARS, SANKUNKAL HOUSE, NARAKKAL VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ YESUDAS AUGUSTINE, S/O.A.C.AUGUSTINE, AGED 39 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK. BY SRI.M.P.RAMANATH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 184 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant and the alleged sub tenants are in revision challenging the order of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and sub letting. The need projected by the respondent/landlord was that possession of the schedule room is needed, so that a shop room for electrical goods can be started. Bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant who also claimed that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The allegation of the landlord in the context of ground under Section 11(4)(i) was that the tenant, the first respondent in the RCP, no longer possessed the building and that he has unauthorisedly sub let or transferred possession of the building to the second respondent in the RCP, who incidentally was direct brother of the first respondent tenant. The tenant's defence to RCR.No.184/2010 2 the case of sub lease was that the alleged sub lessee is not sub lessee or a transferee, but is only paid manager of the tenant, the first respondent in the RCP. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, PW1, CPW1 and 2 and commissioner's report Ext.C1 and sketch C1(a). The Rent Control Court, on appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the landlord was successful in establishing that the need projected by him is a bona fide and that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that he satisfies the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Coming to the ground of sub letting, it was found that the tenant was not able to show that the jural relationship between him and his brother, the alleged sub tenant, was that of employer and manager. Thus it was concluded by the Rent Control Court that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(i) is also made out and order of eviction was granted on that ground also. 2. Though the revision petitioners filed RCA before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, that Authority after reappreciating the evidence would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent RCR.No.184/2010 3 Control Court and confirm the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.John Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioners, addressed arguments on the basis of these grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the findings entered by the Appellate Authority and for that matter the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord are contrary to the evidence on record including circumstantial evidence and hence are liable to be interfered with by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction. According to him, the finding regarding sub letting is only to the effect that the second revision petitioner, the alleged sub lessee, has taken membership in the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi against the door number of the petition schedule building. That by itself cannot be a reason for concluding that the relationship between the parties is sub letting. After all, the tenant and the alleged sub tenant are direct brothers and it has to be presumed that the relationship is not that of the tenant and sub tenant but is that of licensee and licensor only. 4. All the submissions of Sri.John Joseph were opposed by RCR.No.184/2010 4 Sri.M.P.Ramnath, learned counsel who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent/landlord. Mr.Ramnath would support the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority on the various reasons stated therein. According to him, the revision petitioners are much better placed in life than the respondent/landlord and they themselves are landlords of several buildings and have initiated proceedings against their tenants. The learned counsel reminded us of the limits of our jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that there is no warrant for interference. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority. On gauging that judgment by parameters applicable to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any infirmity, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find that all the findings entered therein in favour of the landlord are based on the evidence which is available on record. In short, we do not find any justification for interference. 6. As a last plea, Mr.John Joseph submitted that for the RCR.No.184/2010 5 purpose of shifting their business, the second petitioner has initiated proceedings for evicting another tenant. Though the Rrnt Control Court ordered eviction in favour of the second petitioner, the Appellate Authority interfered with that order and has now remanded the matter to the Rent Control Court. The counsel submitted that at least till such time as eviction order is passed in that case in favour of the second revision petitioner and the second petitioner is able to take possession of that building in execution of that eviction order, the revision petitioners may not be disturbed from the petition schedule building. The above request was very stiffly opposed by Sri.Ramnath. We also feel that it will be most unreasonable to accept the above request of Sri.John Joseph. However, we are of the view that, taking into account the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till 31/3/2011. Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, we direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent/landlord till 31/3/2011 subject to the following RCR.No.184/2010 6 conditions; i). Both the revision petitioners shall filed affidavits before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/3/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.960/- per month will also be paid promptly as and when the same falls due till such time actual surrender is given to the landlord. ii). The affidavit as directed above shall be filed within three weeks from today. The revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above only if affidavits as directed above are filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk