IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 273 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.70/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY PALAKKAD RCP.8/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- AMBUJAM, W/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MOOTHANTHARA, KARNAKI NAGAR, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ G.KRISHNAMOOTHAN, S/O.GANAPATHY MOOTHAN, AGED 85 YEARS, MOOTHANTHARA, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 678 001. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 273 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed in respect of the scheduled building, a residential building, on the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The need projected by the landlord was that the building is required for the occupation by his son Gopalankutty, who does not have any building of his own for his separate residence. It has come out in evidence that Gopalankutty is married and he has his own family. It has also come out in evidence that the other sons of the landlord are also married and have their own families and are presently put up in the family house along with the landlord. RCR.No.273/2011 2 3. The tenant through her statement of objections contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The bona fides of the need was disputed pointing out that the landlord, who had obtained vacant possession of other similar residential buildings on the ground that those buildings are required to be occupied by his other sons, kept those buildings under his own possession. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A4, Exts.B1 to B3 and oral evidence of PW1, the landlord, and RW1, the tenant and Ext.C1 commission report. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence found that the oral evidence given by PW1 was quite inspiring and came to the conclusion that the need is bona fide. It was also held that the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 cannot have any application as obviously the other buildings presently under the vacant possession of the landlord had been got vacated for accommodating the other sons of the landlord. The circumstance that the other sons, for whose need the other buildings had been got vacated, are yet to occupy those buildings, according to the Rent Control Court will not show that RCR.No.273/2011 3 the need projected in the present rent control petition is not bona fide. In that view of the matter, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act. 4. Under the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority has made a reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of eviction. 5. Sri.R.Manikantan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us extensively on the basis of the various grounds raised in this revision petition. The learned counsel submitted that a bona fide need should have an element of necessity. If there was an element of necessity in the similar need projected by the same landlord in the three previous rent control petitions, those buildings would have been occupied by the other sons of the landlord. The conduct of the landlord in keeping those buildings under his own possession after evicting the tenants will show that the need projected in the present case is bereft of bona fides. The first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 will apply, according to the learned counsel. If, as a matter of fact, there was an element of necessity in the need RCR.No.273/2011 4 presently projected, the landlord could have accomplished that need by accommodating his son Goopalankutty in any one of the three other buildings. 6. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions addressed by Mr.Manikantan. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of our present jurisdiction which is revisional. In the present jurisdiction, this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of arriving at conclusions of facts different from the conclusions arrived at by the facts finding authorities, especially when they are reasonable and are founded on evidence. Having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, we are of the view that the findings entered therein that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide and the further finding that the Rent Control Petition is not liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings founded on evidence both oral, documentary and circumstantial. According to us, there is no warrant for interference within the narrow contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. True, the landlord evicted the RCR.No.273/2011 5 tenants occupying the three other buildings by projecting similar needs. It is also true that after getting possession of those buildings, the sons for whom the landlord evicted the tenants, are continuing to reside along with the landlord's family house. As observed by the learned Appellate Authority, merits of a given case is to be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence available in that particular case. As far as the present case is concerned, there was the inspiring oral evidence of PW1. There was the evident position that Gopalankutty was having his own separate family. These two circumstances alone, in our opinion, are sufficient to endorse the concurrent findings of statutory authorities that the need projected is bona fide. The first proviso to section 11 (3) can have application only in cases where the landlord is in possession of a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same city, town or village by which the need projected in the present rent control petition can be accomplished. It appears that at the time when the present rent control petition was instituted, the landlord was in possession of the three other buildings. In such a situation, it is always open to the landlord to show that he had special reasons RCR.No.273/2011 6 for insisting on getting possession of the building which is subject matter of the present rent control petition. In the present case, special reasons stated by the landlord are that the other buildings had been got vacated for accommodating his other three sons and those buildings were under repair for the purpose of occupation by other sons of the landlord for whose need those buildings have been got vacated. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, as contemplated under Section 20, under the impugned judgment. The revision failes and the same will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk