IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 RCRev..No. 303 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.156/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.120/2001 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNNY, SON OF CHALISSERY RAPPAYI, DOOR NO.18/806, KEERTHI MAHAL BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. CHALISSERY RAPPAI, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. MR. P.R.VENKETESH MR. P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MESSRS. ISMAIL BROTHERS ESTATES PVT.LTD.,COMPANY, BRANCH AT KEERTHI MAHAL BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. MR. A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO.308 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR.303/05 ORDER ON I.A. 2254 OF 2005 IN RCR.303 OF 2005 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 21.1.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- Rent Control Revision Nos.303 & 308 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenants, who were sought to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) and additional accommodation under sub-section 8 of Section 11. RCR.No.303/2005 corresponds to RCA.No.156/2003 which pertains to RCP.No.120/2001. RCR.No.308/2005 corresponds to RCA No.159/2003 pertaining to RCP.No.118/2001. Revision petitioner in RCR.303/2005 is occupying the building, which is subject matter of that case, as a service center for his business of sale of motors and pump sets. Petitioner in RCR.308/2005 is conducting a bakery in the building, which is subject matter of that case. Arrears of rent was invoked as a ground in both these cases. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, which was confirmed by the appellate authority also. RCR.303 & 308/05 2 2. Having gone through the impugned judgments we do not find any infirmity at all about the decision of the authorities below to order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. After all, orders for evicting the tenants on the ground of arrears of rent are tentative and are liable to be vacated in terms of Section 11(2)(c). We have no difficulty to confirm order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), granting the revision petitioners two months time from today to get those orders vacated by making required deposit under Section 11(2)(c). 3. We in these RCRs are seriously concerned with the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of eviction which is concurrently passed against the revision petitioners on the ground of additional accommodation. 4. The petition schedule premises are two rooms in the ground floor of a four-storied building belonging to the respondent company. The respondent company is conducting a lodge by name “Keerthi Mahal” in substantial portion of a four-storied building. The reception area of the above lodge is a small room in the ground floor. The need projected in the Rent Control Petition is that the petition schedule rooms are needed so that the landlord can have a more spacious and RCR.303 & 308/05 3 convenient reception area and lounge for the customers of the lodge. It was also stated in the Rent Control Petition itself that the advantages which the landlord will gain on getting possession of the rooms will outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant by the order of eviction. The Rent Control Court, on appreciating the evidence which consisted of oral evidence of PW1 and RW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A14, came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation projected in the Rent Control Petition is a bonafide one. It was also concluded that the advantages which the landlord will gain will far outweigh the hardship if any which may be sustained by the tenant. The appellate authority, considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners/tenants, re-appraised the evidence thoroughly, yet dismissed the rent control appeals. 5. In these revisions several grounds have been raised by the petitioners assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed extensive arguments before us on the basis of all the grounds. Mr.Chacko took us through the judgment of the appellate authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. He drew our attention to the oral RCR.303 & 308/05 4 evidence of PW1. He argued that the landlord company is in possession of 5 vacant rooms in the ground floor itself of the four-storied building. For this argument, he relied on Ext.C1 commission report. According to him, the need for additional accommodation projected in the Rent Control Petition can be accomplished by the landlord by utilising those rooms. He submitted that the revision petitioners will be willing to accept 2 out of those 5 rooms in exchange for the petition schedule building if the landlord is insisting on getting possession of the petition schedule rooms themselves. Mr. Chacko further submitted that PW1, who gave evidence on behalf of the landlord company, was not competent to give evidence. According to him, though PW1 claimed that he had been the Manager of the landlord company, not even a scrap of paper was produced by him to show that he was the Manager. Drawing our attention to Ext.A2 board resolution of the company and A1 Articles of Association, Mr.Chacko argued that the competent person to represent the company and to give evidence on behalf of the company is the Managing Director. Mr. Chacko also argued that it is doubtful whether the signatory to the Rent Control Petition is the Managing Director of the company. Even the name of the RCR.303 & 308/05 5 signatory is not discernible from the Rent Control Petition. 6. All the above submissions were resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel reminded us of the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act, 1965. According to him the concurrent findings of fact entered by the authorities below are based on evidence and there is no warrant for interference with those findings. He would further submit that the argument that PW1 is not a competent person was not raised before the learned appellate authority. In this connection, he drew our attention to the last paragraph of the appellate authority’s judgment. His response to the suggestion of Mr.Chacko that 2 rooms reported to be vacant by the Commissioner be given to the revision petitioner in exchange of the rooms in their possession was that those 5 rooms are lettable rooms and are being let out as part of the lodge. It so happened that at the time when the Commissioner inspected the premises there was no business conducted in the rooms and that is why he reported as vacant. According to him, the petition schedule rooms are absolutely necessary. Those rooms alone are having direct frontage of Kallayi road and findings of the court below is RCR.303 & 308/05 6 that for want of frontage of Kallayi road, which is the main thoroughfare, customers are not being attracted to Keerthi Mahal lodge. The learned counsel would support the findings of the appellate authority in the context of the proviso to sub- section 10 of Section 11. 7. As a last plea Mr.Chacko requested that at least one year’s time be granted to the revision petitioners to surrender the premises. The above plea was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed to us. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority also. We have also made a survey of the evidence to the extent necessary for appreciating the arguments which were addressed before us by the learned counsel. 9. The question which arises for consideration is whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the landlord company needs additional accommodation for the expansion of the reception counter and lounge by utilising the petition schedule building, is illegal, irregular and improper to the extent of warranting interference by this court. Further question will be whether the finding that the RCR.303 & 308/05 7 advantages which the landlord company will gain by getting eviction will outweigh the hardship which the tenant may sustain due to eviction warrants interference. 10. Having appreciated the arguments and evidence to the extent necessary, we are of the view that factual findings have been entered by the appellate authority on a correct appreciation of evidence that came on record. It is in evidence that the present reception room in Keerthi Mahal is a very small one and that the landlord will be able to expand the reception area with frontage of Kallayi road of main thoroughfare only by utilising the petition schedule rooms. If that be so, it has to be held that there is no infirmity about the findings that the landlord company need petition schedule building for additional accommodation bonafide. It is trite by various judgments of this court that standards for establishing bonafides in a case for eviction under sub- section 8 of Section 11 are not so rigorous as was expected in a case for eviction under sub-section 3 of Section 11. Applying such principle, we are of the view that the evidence is sufficient to justify the findings already entered. 11. It is true that PW1 was challenged in cross- examination with respect to his competency to give evidence RCR.303 & 308/05 8 on behalf of company. But we find that before the Rent Control Appellate Authority the above challenge has been given go by. 12. We are not impressed by the argument that the identity of the signatory to the Rent Control Petition is not clear. A perusal of the relevant Rule, sub-rule 3 of Rule 7, will indicate that application under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act need be signed by the counsel for the landlord alone. The competency of the counsel who signed the Rent Control Petition as counsel for the landlord company was never challenged by the revision petitioner before any of the authorities. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the RCRs will fail. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners for time being granted for vacating the premises, we feel that there is justification for granting time till 30.9.2010. 14. In the result the Rent Control Revision is dismissed. The executing court is directed not to order delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondents till 30.9.2010 subject to the following conditions:- Revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before RCR.303 & 308/05 9 the execution court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the 2nd respondent on or before 30.9.2010 and through the same affidavit the petitioners shall also make an undertaking that they will discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and will pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till they give actual surrender. It is made clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit of the time granted by this order only if they file the affidavit in time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb