IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No.58 of 2010 (E) ----------------------------- RCA.52/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.84/2003 of ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER (ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.P.ANWAR,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.K.PAREETH,RESIDING IN LINE ROOM NO.V. P.78,VETTILAPPALLY WARD,KANNUR-31. 2. B.P.SAFIYA,AGED 43 YEARS,W/O.AZEEZ, RESIDING IN LINE ROOM NO.V.P.78,VETTILAPPALLY WARD,KANNUR-31. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------- SHEKHALINTAVIDA FATHIBI,AGED 73 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI MASALIYAR,SHEKHALI HOUSE, (HOUSE NO.VP.80)VETTILAPPALLY WARD,KANNUR-3. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 ORDER Satheesachandran, J The concurrent decision rendered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority upholding the need canvassed by the landlord as bona fide is challenged in the revision by the tenant. The landlady sought for eviction of the tenant from a residential building canvassing a case that the building under her occupation is partially damaged and it has become uninhabitable as there is a threat of imminent danger from landsliding. Though the tenant has disputed the need canvassed by the landlord in R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 -2- the petition, the Rent Control Court on the materials tendered by both sides arrived at the conclusion that the need alleged by the landlady is bona fide. The Appellate Authority on re- appreciating the materials tendered, concurred with the finding entered by the Rent Controller. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed the concurrent findings rendered by both the authorities below contending that the evidence was mis-appreciated and that has resulted in manifestation of injustice. 3. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction covered under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act (Act 2 of 1965), we cannot re-appreciate the materials tendered in the case where a decision has been rendered by the Rent Control Court and R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 -3- the Appellate Authority on the materials placed in accordance with equity, justice and good conscious. When that is the rule mandated by the statute in the absence of any circumstance from which it can be shown that the finding entered is perverse, it is not open to the revisional court to supplement its view as against the view expressed by the Rent Control Court and also the Appellate Authority. Perusing the orders of the Rent Control Court and also the Appellate Authority, we find an Advocate Commissioner has conducted local inspection and filed a report which supported the case of the landlady that the building under her occupation is partially damaged and there is a threat of landsliding as well. In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 -4- interfere with the concurrent decision rendered by the courts below. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, however, urged that the present proceedings was initiated by the landlady after having been worsted in two earlier Rent Control Proceedings. We notice that those two petitions were filed on other grounds i.e. one on the ground of arrears of rent and other under the ground of sub letting. We find that there is substantial change of circumstance after the termination of the earlier proceedings, as in the present case the need alleged is on account of a threat out of natural calamity. In such circumstances, we find there is no merit in the revision challenging the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 -5- Authority. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.P.U.Shailajan urged for granting one year's time to vacate the building submitting that it is very difficult for the tenant to locate a suitable building for shifting his residence. Taking note of the fact that the need of the landlady was on account of an imminent danger arising from a natural calamity i.e. landsliding, we cannot grant so much of time as requested by the counsel. However, a period of six months' time shall be given to the tenant by the execution court provided he files an undertaking before that court within two weeks from the date of this order that he shall surrender and hand over vacant possession on or before the expiry of that period R. C. R. No.58 of 2010 -6- and also pay the entire rent as and when due including arrears of rent, if any, payable to the landlord. 5. Subject to the above directions, the revision is dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kns/-