IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 45 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.10/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.67/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE SECRETARY THALASSERY PUBLIC SERVICANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- P.V.MOOSA S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 68 YEARS, SHARAF NIVAS, NEW MAHE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 45 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 5 th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant- Thalassery Public Servants Co-operative Society has come up in revision against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The need projected by the respondent/landlord was that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of his dependent daughter Amina, so that Amina can conduct business in readymade garments. Amina, for whose need the building was sought for by her father/respondent, herself gave evidence as PW1. It came out in evidence that she was dependent on her father and needs the petition schedule building for doing business. It also come out in evidence that both her father and her husband, who were previously employed in Gulf countries, lost their employment and RCR.No.45/2010 2 that the family of Amina is in financial difficulties. 2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on appraising the evidence thoroughly, came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 was quite credible and accordingly, held that the need projected by the respondent was a bona fide one. The authorities below rightly held that the petitioner, being not a natural person, is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 3. Sri.V.Gireshkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addresses us very strenuously on the various grounds raised in the RCR memorandum. He even argued that the judgment of this court taking the view that only tenants who are natural persons can be given protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 requires reconsideration. The learned counsel submitted that the Rent Control Petition ought to have been rejected applying the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant. The jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 is revisional in nature. This court does RCR.No.45/2010 3 not ordinarily reappraise the evidence especially when the conclusions of fact arrived at by the final fact finding Authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, are founded on evidence. We are of the view that the finding that the need projected is bona fide is founded on credible evidence given by PW1. It is true that a contention was taken that the landlord is having possession of other buildings of the landlord's own and that the rent control petition is liable to be rejected for that reason. But, as rightly noticed by the authorities below, apart from raising such a contention, the revision petitioner was unable to adduce any evidence to show that the landlord is actually in possession of the vacant building by which the need projected by him can be accomplished. We are not persuaded to hold that the judgment of this court taking the view that only natural person can be given protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 requires reconsideration. 5. The result of the above discussion is that the RCR fails and will stand dismissed. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner be granted one year's time to surrender the premises, RCR.No.45/2010 4 we are of the view that time can be granted till 30/9/2010 imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, even as we dismiss the RCR without any order as to costs, we direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 30/9/2010 subject to the following conditions; The present Secretary of the revision petitioner Society shall, on behalf of the Society, file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord on or before 30/9/2010. Through the same affidavit, it will be undertaken that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid promptly and regularly till such time the building is surrendered. The affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today. RCR.No.45/2010 5 The revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted as above unless affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk