IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 327 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.22/2006 of ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,ALAPPUZHA. RCP.14/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- A.G.PURUSHOTHAMAN, ALACKAL STORES, NO.VIII/321, MUHAMMA PANCHAYATH, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.POTHAN JOSEPH, YOGA HOUSE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, THANNEERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, S/O.POTHEN JOSEPH, -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP FOR R1-2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2667/2007 IN RCR NO.327/2007 DISMISSED 1/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 327 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation (Sub Section (8) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965). The bona fides of the need for additional accommodation was disputed by the tenant. He also contended that the hardship, which will be sustained by him by the order of eviction, will outweigh the advantages which the landlord may gain by getting eviction. It was also pointed out that the landlord is in possession of two other rooms in the larger building of which the petition schedule room and the room in which the landlord is conducting his own textile business are parts. This circumstance was highlighted as a circumstance indicating absence of bona fides. The Rent Control Court enquired into the Rent Control Petition and at trial the evidence consisted of oral evidence of PW1, RW 1 to RW3 and Exts.B1 and B2. The Rent Control Court RCR.No.327/2007 2 on appreciating the evidence, would allow the Rent Control Petition and pass the order of eviction under sub Section (8) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation was bona fide and that the advantages which the landlord will gain by getting eviction will outweigh the hardship that the tenant may sustain by the eviction order. It is challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the instant revision under Section 20 is filed on the various grounds. 2. Sri.J.Omprakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us very extensively on the various grounds raised in the Rent Control Revision Memorandum. He read over to us full text of the judgment of the Appellate Authority. He submitted that the Appellate Authority has observed that the Rent Control Court has entered into a finding that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord is bona fide. According to him, such a finding was never entered by the Rent Control Court. He read over to us the order of the Rent Control Court also. The learned counsel agreed that the Appellate RCR.No.327/2007 3 Authority is the final court on facts under the statutory scheme. According to him, as the statutory appellate authority, the learned District Judge was expected to re-appreciate the evidence, which has not been done. As permitted by us he read over to us, the oral evidence of PW1, the de facto claimant. All the submissions of Sri.Omprakash were stiffly resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. According to him, within the contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20, there is no justification for interfering with the concurrent decision of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. As a last plea, Sri. Omprakash submitted that in case this court is not inclined to allow the RCR, one year's time be granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. 3. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. Sri.Omprakash is certainly right when he submits that the Rent Control Court has not entered any specific finding regarding the bona fides of the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord. But, as we have already indicated, the Appellate Authority is the final court on facts under the statutory scheme. That Authority, in our RCR.No.327/2007 4 opinion, has certainly analysed the evidence and come to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord is a bona fide one. Having gone through the oral evidence adduced by the de facto claimant PW1, we are of the view that the bona fides of the need spoken to by him has not been seriously challenged in cross examination. Even otherwise it is trite that the standards for establishing bona fides of a claim under sub Section (8) of Section 11 are not so stringent as required in a case under Section 11 (3). It has evident that the petition schedule room is the room adjacent to the room where the landlord is conducting textile business. It was also become evident that if the petition schedule building is got vacated, the landlord will come to have a larger building with direct frontage of Thanneermukkom – Alappuzha main road. The unchallenged evidence of the landlord is to the effect that he is conducting his textile business currently in a reasonably profitable manner. We are of the view that the Appellate Authority cannot be blamed for having taken the view that the advantages, which the landlord will get by getting eviction, will be considerable when compared to the hardship which will be sustained by the tenant. RCR.No.327/2007 5 The tenant himself suggested to the landlord in cross examination that developments are coming upon the western side of the Muhamma junction. Therefore, if it comes to that, the tenant may not have much difficulty in finding another building for shifting his business. According to us, there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction since the judgment of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be tainted by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. However, we feel that there is justification for granting reasonably long period to the revision petitioner for vacating the premises. We are inclined to grant such time, however, only by imposing conditions. 4. Result of the above discussion is that the Rent Control Revision fails and will stand dismissed. However, there will be a direction to the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondent till 30/9/2010 subject to the following conditions; i). The Revision Petitioner shall pay rent to the respondent at the rate of Rs.100/-per month with effect from 1st January 2010 till RCR.No.327/2007 6 he surrenders the building. ii). The revision petitioner shall discharge arrears of rent, if any, within one month. Iii). The Revision Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court or before the Rent Control Court as the case may be within one month from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord on or before the 30th September 2010. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if he complies with all the above conditions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk