IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 85 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.13/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KASARAGOD RCP.16/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER(APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) ------------------------------------------------------------- C.M.AHAMED BASHEER, SON OF C.M.MAHIN HAJI, ANEBAGILU, KASARAGOD, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.KASARAGOD AND RESIDING IN MUNDAKULAM IN CHEMNAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.CHEMNAD-671317. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SMT.O.K.SANTHA SMT.S.SANTHY RESPONDENT(S)/(RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS): --------------- 1. C.M.IBRAHIM HAJI, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING IN CHOORI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR-671125. 2. C.M.ABDULLA, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING IN CHOORI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR-671125. 3. C.M.AHAMMEDKUNHI, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING IN CHOORI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR-671125. 4. C.M.SULAIMAN, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING IN CHOORI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR-671125. 5. C.M.MOIDEENKUNHI, SON OF LATE MOHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING IN CHOORI, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.RAMDASNAGAR-671125. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 85 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Balakrishnan, J. The tenant is in revision. Five landlords filed a petition for eviction under Sections 11 (4)(ii), 11(4)(iii) and Section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court disallowed the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii) and 11 (4)(iii) of the Act, but ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. Sri.D.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued on all the grounds raised in the revision petition. The learned counsel mainly focused his arguments on the first proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that in the rent control petition the number of other building possessed by the landlords was specifically stated, the landlords did not specifically point out that the said building is not sufficient for their requirements. The need projected by the landlords is that their two sons intend to start business in RCR.No.85/2011 2 the petition schedule building in storing and letting out shamiyana, chairs and other materials used for marriages and other functions. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the rent control petition where the number of the building possessed by the landlords is mentioned. But it is noticed that though it was stated that the landlords are in possession of that building, it was not specifically stated that the said building was owned by the landlords. It has come out in evidence that the said building was situated on the rear side of the petition schedule building. According to the landlords, the said room situated on the rear side was used or intended to be used as a godown. It was not having any road frontage. In evidence also it was not brought out that the said building belongs to the landlords. In order to disentitle the landlords from getting eviction, it has to be proved that the other building was owned and possessed by the landlords. There is no specific pleading or evidence regarding the same. That apart, it is seen that the other room, which was used as a godown by the landlord, is only situated behind the petition schedule building. It has no road frontage also. Both the authorities found that the tenant is RCR.No.85/2011 3 not entitled to protection under the second proviso to section 11 (3) of the Act. No satisfactory evidence was adduced by the tenant to claim protection under the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. That finding also cannot be upset by this court in revision. Thus we find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by the two authorities. The revision petition is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk