IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 213 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.28/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM RCP.18/2006 OF RENT CONTROL , KOLLAM .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOY DANIEL, S/O. DANIEL, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, THOTTATHIL LANE, CHELAKKODU KARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.P. ABOOBACKER MOULAVI, VELIYAVEEDU, MUTTAKAVU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR FOR R1 SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO. 2698 OF 2009n DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. 30-7-2010 SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 213 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing an application filed by the revision petitioner tenant for setting aside a summary order of eviction which was passed against him under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965. In fact the application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction was filed by the revision petitioner not on time. It was delayed by 442 days. The explanation offered by the revision petitioner for the delay was that on receiving notice from the Rent Control Court of the rent control petitioner, the revision petitioner approached the landlord and it was agreed between them that if the arrears of rent alleged is paid, the landlord will withdraw from the RCR. 213 of 2009 -2- RCP. It is averred in the affidavit that arrears of rent was paid against Exts.A1 and A2 receipts and believing the assurance given by the landlord that the rent control petition will be withdrawn, the revision petitioner did not appear before the court on the day when the ex parte order was passed. The application was stiffly opposed by the landlord who filed a counter affidavit contending that the story that upon receiving notice from the Rent Control Court the tenant approached the landlord and it was agreed between the parties that the issue involved in the RCP can be settled upon payment of rent and that rent was paid, are all false. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at enquiry the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of the tenant as PW-1 and that of PW-2 who was none other than the son of the landlord. The documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1, A2, A3 and A4. Ext.A1 was dated 10- RCR. 213 of 2009 -3- 3-2005 and it is apparently issued against payment of Rs.10,000/-. The Rent Control Court was not all impressed by the evidence of PW-1. In fact, deviating from the pleading, PW-1 the tenant stated during evidence that payment of amounts as per Exts.A1 and A2 were made by him not to the landlord, but to the landlord's son PW-2. PW-2 would deny receiving any amount from the revision petitioner tenant. The Rent Control Court noticed that Ext.A1 relied on by the tenant to show that he paid amount to the landlord, is issued much prior to the commencement of the rental arrangement between the parties. The court took the view that the version of the tenant that the landlord agreed to withdraw from the RCP on receiving the arrears of rent alleged itself was highly improbable and in that view of the matter the IA was dismissed. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the appeal RCR. 213 of 2009 -4- preferred by the revision petitioner, reappraised the pleadings and the evidence. That authority also concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Smt. K.Deepa, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of the grounds. She submitted that Exts. A1 to A4 will clearly show that arrears of rent alleged in the RCP was discharged by the revision petitioner. She highlighted that part of the payment was through ICICI Bank and hence the correctness of that payment cannot be in dispute. She submitted that this is a case where the tenant never got an opportunity to contest the RCP on its merits. She pleaded that an opportunity be given to the tenant revision RCR. 213 of 2009 -5- petitioner even if it be by imposing conditions. 3. All the submissions of Smt. Deepa were resisted by Sri.V.E.Abdul Gafoor, learned counsel for the respondent. According to him, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Appellate Authority warranting invocation of the revision jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. He submitted that rent was in arrears as alleged in the RCP from March 2005 and till this date the tenant has not discharged even a portion of the rent. He submitted further that the tenant has closed down the business and is not conducting any business in the building since 2006. According to him, as the building has been virtually abandoned by the tenant and no useful purpose is going to be served from the point of view of the tenant by giving opportunity to the tenant for substantiating objections which are yet to be filed to the RCP. The submissions of Mr.Abdul Gafoor that the tenant RCR. 213 of 2009 -6- has closed down the business was opposed by Smt.Deepa. She submitted that the revision petitioner continues to carry on business even now in the building. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting is rivisional in nature and in this jurisdiction this court is not expected ordinarily to reappraise the evidence for substituting the factual conclusions arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final Court on facts. As far as the present case is concerned, the finding concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is that the revision petitioner's case that upon receiving notice from the Rent Control Court he approached the landlord and that it was agreed by the landlord that upon payment of the rent, the landlord will RCR. 213 of 2009 -7- withdraw from the rent control petition is a highly improbable one. According to us, the above finding is quite reasonable and does not warrant interference. As rightly noticed bay the statutory authorities it was not on the ground of arrears of rent alone that the landlord instituted the RCP. On the contrary, it was also on a substantial ground, i.e., ground of bonafide own occupation by his dependent son that he instituted the RCP. It is very unlikely that a landlord who is instituting an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need for occupation by a dependent family member will withdraw from the RCP for the reason that the arrears of rent has been discharged. The claim that the arrears of rent was discharged also has not been proved. In fact, the plea of the tenant was that he paid arrears of rent to the landlord. But at the time of evidence he would take the stand that the payment was to the RCR. 213 of 2009 -8- landlord's son. But that case stands disproved by PW-2. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The RCR is dismissed. However, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ksv/-