IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No.226 of 2007 -------------------------- RCA.67/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY RCP.1/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- KANDAM VITTA KANNAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. CHIRU AMMA, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT ANNUR AMSOM, VELLUR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.T.POULOSE (KORATTY) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- MOOTHALA DAMODARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT VELLUR AMSOM, ANNUR DESOM TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The landlord who was unsuccessful before the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority has come up in revision. The parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant. The landlord sought to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Sub Section 3 of Section 11, and need for additional accommodation under sub Section 8 of Section 11. The tenant disputed the existence of any of the grounds invoked. 2. At trial, the evidence consisted of the oral R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -2- testimonies of the landlord as PW1 and the tenant as RW1, Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1. The reports submitted by the Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that rent was in arrears as alleged by the landlord and passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). But, that court held that the need projected by the landlord for conduct of business in hay in the petition schedule premises whether it be under sub Section 3 of Section 11 or under sub Section 8 of Section 11, is not bona fide. The Rent Control Court, however, would conclude that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) and also that if the case is considered under sub Section 8 of Section 11, the R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -3- hardship which the tenant will suffer will not outweigh the advantages which the landlord may gain. 3. The Appellate Authority considering the appeal filed by the landlord, re-appraised the evidence in the case. Before the Appellate Authority, the landlord would confine his case for eviction only to the ground under sub Section 8 of Section 11. The Appellate Authority would come to the conclusion that the evidence in the case fell short of holding that the landlord is carrying on business in hay in the premises under his occupation and is in bona fide requirement of the petition schedule premises by way of additional accommodation for expansion of business. That Authority also, however, would concur with the Rent Control Court in the matter of proviso to sub Section R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -4- 10 of Section 11. 4. In this revision under Section 20, the landlord has raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We have heard the Submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.Abraham George Jacob, the learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Sasindran would address us extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of eviction. The learned counsel submitted that the standards for establishing bona fides of a need under sub Section 8 of Section 11 are not so rigorous as those necessary in a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide own occupation. Applying such liberal standards, it is only to be found that the need for R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -5- additional accommodation projected by the landlord is bona fide. Counsel submitted that the authorities below are not justified in concluding that the landlord is not carrying any business in hay in the premises under his possession. According to him, even RW1 has admitted in evidence that the landlord is purchasing hay brought from Karnataka in lorries. 5. All the above submissions were resisted by Sri.Abraham George Jacob, the learned counsel for the respondent. Reading over the testimony of the tenant/RW1, the learned counsel submitted that what RW1 has stated is only that the landlord is purchasing hay brought over to the town from Karnataka in lorries. The landlord admittedly has a cow and it is for that cow that hay is purchased. R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -6- 6. We have considered the rival submissions and considered the evidence also to the extent for appreciating the submissions. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this Court is not expected to reappraise the evidence. Reappraisal of evidence will be warranted only when it can be said that appreciation of evidence by the fact finding authorities is wholly erroneous and that the decision taken by those authorities are tainted by any illegality, irregularity and impropriety. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We are of the view that the finding entered therein that the landlord is not in bona fide need of the petition schedule building for additional accommodation is a finding founded on evidence R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -7- available on record. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. At the same time, we feel that the current rent of Rs.600/- per mensem fixed more than nine years ago being paid to the landlord for the petition schedule premises is very low. We are of the view that having regard to the importance of the locality and the rent which the building may fetch if let out today, the respondent shall pay at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per mensem to the revision petitioner. Accordingly, we re-fix the rent prospectively with effect from first February, 2010 at Rs.1,100/- per mensem. We make it clear that the above fixation is tentative and subject to regular fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court at the instance of either of the parties. R. C. R. No.226 of 2007 -8- 7. The result of the above discussion is:- a) The RCR is dismissed. b) Rent is tentatively fixed at Rs.1,100/- per month with effect from 01/02/2010. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-