IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 283 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.41/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA RCP.1/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- CHERTHALA MILK SUPPLIES AND MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.A.157 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERTHALA NORTH MURI OF CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- V.N.GANESH BHATT, S/O. V.G.NARAYANA BHATT, VILAKKANARI MADOM, CHERTHALA NORTH MURI OF CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O. 688 524. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 283 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant - Cherthala Milk Supplies and Marketing Co-operative Society No. A.157 is the order of eviction passed against them concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)(b)), own occupation(Section 11(3) and acquisition of other buildings reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirement (Section 11(4) (iii)). The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, which consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, Ext. B1, oral evidence of PWs 1 & 2 and RW1 as well as Ext.C1 commission report, came to the conclusion that all the three grounds invoked by the landlord stood established in the case. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on all the three grounds. 2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered RCA RCR.No.283/2010 2 No.41/2008 preferred by the tenant and reappraised the pleadings as well as the evidence. That Authority concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.T.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. 4. We have anxiously considered all the submissions of Sri.Jayakrishnan. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The question for decision by us is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent, acquisition of other buildings and own occupation can be said to be illegal , irregular or improper as envisaged by Section 20. In the present jurisdiction, which is revisional in nature, this Court is not expected to reappraise the evidence and substitute conclusions of facts arrived at by the Rent Control RCR.No.283/2010 3 Appellate Authority especially when the same is in confirmation of the findings entered by the Rent Control Court on the basis of evidence. Having gauged the judgment of the Appellate Authority by para meters, which are applicable for exercise of the the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we have no difficulty to conclude that there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. In fact, the finding of the statutory authorities that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted under Section 11 (4)(iii) has been entered with reference to a building newly constructed by the revision petitioner tenant very close to the petition schedule building. Even though Sri.Jayakrishnan, argued at the outset that the building newly constructed by the revision petitioner does not permit access through vehicles, he would concede later that even the petition schedule building lacks in such a facility. According to him, the petitioner society has a membership strength of 856 and for catering to the needs of the members, who are producers and suppliers of milk, the newly constructed premises will not be sufficient and that at any rate the Society will have to look for additional premises. For identifying a suitable additional RCR.No.283/2010 4 premises, the Society needs at least one year's time and this was the last submission of Sri.Jayakrishnan. Even though we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we feel that the request of the learned counsel for grant of more time is worth considering. However, we are not inclined at present to grant more time than till 31/3/2011. 5. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). The RCR is dismissed and the eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in favour of the respondent till 31/3/2011 subject to the following conditions; The Secretary of the Revision Petitioner society will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within 10 days from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/3/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court together with rent, which has fallen due till date, will be paid within 30 days from today and also that occupational charges at RCR.No.283/2010 5 the current rent rate will also be paid till such time as he surrenders the building. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk