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 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No.138 of 2009 --------------------------- RCA.124/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY RCP.217/2002 of PRL.M.C. (RENT CONTROL),KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.1 & RESPONDENT NO.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. SONIA, D/O. LATE VICTOR MAVEETTIL NURSE, MAVEETIL HOUSE, KOLLAM BAZAR, MUCHUKUNNU ROAD, P.O. KOLLAM BAZAR, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & APPELLANT NO.2 & PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AYARAKATH KARAKUNIYIL ABDUL WAHAD, S/O. MUHAMED, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. EDAKKAD. 2. AYARAKATH KARAKUNIYIL ABDULLA, S/O. MUHAMED, AGED 36 YEARS, BUSINESS, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. EDAKKAD. 3. AYARAKATH KARAKUNIYIL SUBAIR, S/O. MUHAMED, AGED 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. EDAKKAD. 4. AYARAKATH KARAKUNIYIL NAVAS, S/O. MUHAMED, AGED 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. EDAKKAD. RCRev..No.138 of 2009 -2- 5. AYARAKATH KARAKUNIYIL IMTHIAS, S/O. MUHAMED, AGED 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION NIL, KADAMBUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. EDAKKAD. 6. LAL FRANCIS, S/O. FRANCIS, 36 YEARS, BUSINESS, VICTOR STORE, NEAR MAKANI, SOUTH BAZAR, P.O. KANNUR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is the revision petitioner and she impugns in this revision under Section 20 the order of eviction concurrently passed against her by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11 (3) and sub letting under Section 11(4)(1). The need projected by the landlord in the context of sub Section 3 of Section 11 was that the building is required by the fifth petitioner in the RCP (5th respondent herein) who is a co-owner for doing trade. The bona fides of the need and the claim was resisted by the revision petitioner as well as the sixth respondent in the RCP, R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -2- the alleged sub lessee. It was contended by the revision petitioner that the petition is liable to fail in view of the first proviso to sub Section 3 and in view of the second proviso to the same sub Section. 2. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and found that the need was bona fide and that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of any of the provisions of sub Section 3. Coming to the ground of sub lease, it was found that the sixth respondent in the RCP is the sub lessee and that there is unauthorised sub lease or transfer in favour of that respondent. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on both grounds sought for. The Appellate Authority re-appreciated the grounds and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court. 3. Sri.Vineeth Kuriakose, the learned counsel for R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -3- the petitioner addressed us very strenuously and persuasively. The learned counsel drew our attention to the pleadings raised by the landlord in the context of the grounds under sub Section 3 of Section 11 and submitted that the landlord has not specified in the RCP as to what is the trade which is proposed to be conducted by the fifth petitioner in the RCP. On account of lack of specific pleadings with respect to the nature of business proposed to be carried on prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, so submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel also assailed the findings of the authorities in the context of the first proviso to sub Section 3 and also the second proviso to Sub Section 3. As regards the first proviso to Sub Section 3, the learned counsel submitted that it was reported by the Advocate R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -4- Commissioner on the basis of his inspection that a vacant building is actually available very adjacent to the petition schedule building. The authorities below, however, ignored that on the reason that it is a different Door Number which is mentioned by the revision petitioner in her statement of objections. The reality is according to the learned counsel, that a vacant building having Door No.504 is available with the landlord in the larger building of which the petition schedule building itself is a part. Learned counsel would assail the findings of the authorities on the other grounds also. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have read the relevant pleadings raised by the rent control petitioner as well as the revision petitioner in the R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -5- context of the need under Section 11(3). We are convinced on a reading of the pleadings of the revision petitioner that no prejudice whatsoever has been occasioned to the revision petitioner on account of the landlord not specifically stating as to what is the business which is proposed to be carried on by the 5th petitioner in the RCP. 5. Coming to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 11(3), we are in agreement with the learned counsel that the revision petitioner had committed a mistake while mentioning the Door Number of the building which is allegedly in the possession of the landlord. The building which the revision petitioner had in mind was certainly Door No.504 itself. But the question is whether that building is under the vacant possession of the landlord. The Advocate R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -6- Commissioner as well as the RW1 themselves stated in their evidence that the building did carry the name board of a hotel. The case of the landlord was that the building is under the possession of the tenant to whom the building was let out for carrying on a hotel. May be it true that at present, the hotel business is not being carried on. But it cannot be stated on the basis of the evidence presently available that the building which has fallen vacant and is under the possession of the landlord. The first proviso to Section 11 is attracted only when the building is actually in possession of the landlord. Going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that those findings are founded on evidence. 6. Sri.Vineeth Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the landlord who was R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -7- directed to produce the documents to prove his title before the Rent Control Court did not produce any document to prove his title initially. But only at the appellate stage he produced documents to prove his title. Admission of documents at the appellate stage, according to the counsel, was improper. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel that the appellate court went wrong in permitting the landlord to produce documents to prove her title. It is well known that proprietary title over the building is not much relevant in rent control proceedings. In rent control proceedings, the authorities are concerned about the relationship between landlord and tenant only. In the instant case a reading of the statement of objections by the revision petitioner shows that relationship of the landlord - tenant is virtually R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -8- admitted. According to us, it was quite unnecessary that the landlord to produce documents to prove his title at the appellate stage. Even without the documents, the landlord-tenant relationship is established. 7. Having regard to the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for interference on the eviction order passed under either of the grounds. 8. The result is that there is no warrant for interference for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 for correcting the impugned orders passed by the authorities below since there is no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order of eviction passed by the courts below. Accordingly, this RCR will stand dismissed. R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -9- 9. As his last request, Sri.Vineeth Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for six months time to vacate the building. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. However, by way of indulgence and in deference to the request of the learned counsel, we grant four months' time from today to the revision petitioner for peacefully surrendering the petition schedule building to the landlord subject to the following conditions:- 10. Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, stating that she will unconditionally and peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the landlord within four months from today. It should also be stated in the affidavit that she will discharge arrears of rent, if any, within R. C. R. No.138 of 2009 -10- one month and will continue to pay occupational charges at the present rent rate till actual surrender is made. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-