IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 214 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.5/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.84/2005 of RENT CONROLLER,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FAISAL RAJ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PUTHENVEETTIL ABDUL HAMEED, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RUKHIYA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.PUTHENVEETTIL ABDUL HAMEED, VELIYANNUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- N.L.JOSE, S/O.NELLISSERY LONAPPAN, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 618. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.C.R. No.214 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 O R D E R --------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The landlords are in revision. They sought to evict their tenant on the ground under subsection 3 of Section 11. The claim was that the petition schedule building is required by them to be used as a godown for their ongoing business. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence adduced by parties came to the conclusion that the need is bonafide. It is also held that Rent Control Petition is liable to be failed by virtue of the first proviso to subsection 3 of Section 11 or second proviso. Accordingly the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. It appears that immediately after Rent Control Petition was allowed by the Rent Control Court the landlords came into possession of another building having Door No.XI/67. The availability of the above said building was highlighted in the appeal RCR.214/11 -2- preferred by pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority accepted the contention of the landlords that the first proviso to subsection 3 to Section 11 will not operate against the landlords as the landlords were admittedly not having possession of the building a the time when the Rent Control Petition was filed. However, relying on certain decisions of this court including the decision in Dasan Vs. Janardhanan (2009 (2) KLT 726) learned appellate authority held that subsequent events are relevant and the landlord was obliged to show by evidence that the landlord could not have occupied the subsequently obtained building for accomplishing the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. Though respondents have been served with notice, they have not come before this court. 2. Sri.V.R.K. Kaimal, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the need projected in the Rent Control Petition is the need to conduct a godown. The petition schedule building is suitable for the above need as there is enough space and facilities for parking lorries near RCR.214/11 -3- to the petition schedule building. But as regards Building No.XI/67 there is no parking facility. Hence the same cannot be used as godown. According to Mr. Kaimal this aspect could not be brought out in evidence by the landlords as it was only subsequent to the passage of the eviction order that the building fell vacant and became available. 3. The submissions of Mr. Kaimal as indicated are not resisted before us. We are inclined to accept the request of Mr. Kaimal for order of remand. Under such circumstances we set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and remand R.C.A. No.5/2008 to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. The learned appellate authority will permit the landlords to adduce evidence on the question as to why the landlords did not occupy the building have door No.XI/67 for accomplishing the need projected in the Rent Control Petition. If the landlords adduce the evidence, the appellate authority shall allow tenant to adduce counter evidence. Learned appellate RCR.214/11 -4- authority will take fresh decision in the R.C.A. on the basis of evidence on record and further evidence to be adduced. Learned appellate authority will expedite matters and pass revised judgment after completing the enquiry early, at any rate within three months from the receipt of a copy of this order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb