IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 259 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.84/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.79/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT .,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/TENANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- VADAKKEN KOVIL PRAJINA D/O. RAJAN, AGED 27 YEARS, VK HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR-670004. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER/LANDLORD ---------------------------------- KOMBRA PREMARAJAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KOMBRA RAGHAVAN, PUZHATHIL AMSOM DESOM, CHIRAKKAL.P.O. KANNUR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 259OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected by the landlord in respect of the subject premises, the ground floor room in a three storied building having one room on each floor, is that the landlord needs to conduct agency business. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant who claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Another contention which was raised by the tenant was that a staircase room in the ground floor as well as the room in the second floor fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and the landlord let out those rooms to other tenants. The Rent Control Court evaluated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the eviction ground under sub RCR.No.259/2011 2 section (3) of Section 11 stood established. It was held that the tenant has not proved that she is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. It was further held that the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 has no application in this case and that the landlord at any rate had good reason for insisting on getting possession of the subject premises . Accordingly, order of eviction was passed. 2. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of evidence considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. That authority also concurred with all the findings entered by the Rent Control Court. The appeal was dismissed accordingly. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.K.N.Abhilash learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed extensive arguments before us based on those grounds. Notwithstanding the persuasiveness of the submissions of Mr.Abhilash, having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. We are convinced , on reading of RCR.No.259/2011 3 the Appellate Authority's judgment that all the findings entered therein regarding the existence of the ground under Section 11 (3) and the liability of the revision petitioner to suffer order of eviction are founded on evidence actually available on record. The vacancy of the ground floor room and the staircase room in the ground floor, which we are sure was a very very small room and the second floor room cannot have any impact on the right of the landlord to evict the revision petitioner. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk