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 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 103 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.2/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KASARAGOD RCP.10/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- TANSEN HABEEB MUNDAL, S/O.HABIB UR RAHMAN MUNDAL, ECONOMIC GRADUATE, THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.ABDUL KHADER MUNDAL, S/O.LATE ABDULLA MUNDAL, MUNDAL EAST P.O., THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.C.N.IBRAHIM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ PRASHANTH K.R., S/O.P.RAGHAVAN, "POURNAMI", MAYYIL, KANNUR, CARRYING ON BUSINESS, DIGITRANICS, MUNDAL EAST, NEW BUS STAND, KASARAGOD, P.O.KASARAGOD, KASABA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.103 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petition filed by him. The need projected by the landlord in the rent control petition was that he wants possession of the petition schedule building for starting a consultancy office. 2 The bona fides of the need was disputed by the tenant, who also contended that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the need is not bona fide. It was further concluded that the rent control petition was at any rate liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. As the landlord was in possession of another RCR.No.103/2011 2 building and the landlord had not shown any special reason justifying the eviction of the petition schedule building, the Rent Control Court went on to decide that the tenant was successful in showing that he is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3). Thus, the rent control petition was dismissed in all respects by the Rent Control Court. 3. The learned Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the landlord made a reappraisal of the evidence. That Authority concurred with the Rent Control Court in its finding regarding the bona fides of the need and also regarding the applicability of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. However, the finding that the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) was vacated by the Appellate Authority. Resultantly the RCA was dismissed. 4. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.P.K.Muhammed learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord addressed strenuous and extensive arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. RCR.No.103/2011 3 Mr.Muhammed submitted that the building disclosed by Ext.B4 assessment register was not under the vacant possession of the landlord at the time when the rent control petition was instituted. The entires in Ext.B4 was made on the basis of the state of affairs existing several years ago. Oral evidence was adduced by the landlord by himself and through witnesses to show that B4 building is in the possession of the tenant. The learned counsel would assail the finding of the statutory authorities regarding the bona fides of the need also. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Mr.Muhammed. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and we have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The question that arises for consideration is whether there is any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 on the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Under the statutory scheme, it is the Appellate Authority which is the final court on facts. This court in revision is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence and substitute factual conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority when those conclusions are found to be reasonable RCR.No.103/2011 4 conclusions founded on evidence. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority we find that the findings entered therein that the need is not bona fide and that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to section 11(3) are findings entered on the basis of the evidence available on record. Ext.B4 is a document as envisaged by Section 26 of the L.A. Act. It is mandatory that entires in Ext.B4 shall be accepted as evidence of the facts recorded therein. Going by Ext.B4 a building belonging to the landlord is under the vacant possession of the landlord. Of course, presumption aroused by Ext.B4 is a rebuttable presumption. We do not think that the above presumption was rebutted by the landlord by legal evidence. If, as a matter of fact, the above building was in the possession of a tenant at the time when the rent control petition was executed, the landlord could have proved the same by producing documentary evidence. The same was not done. The finding arrived at by the court below based on Ext.B4 cannot be faulted. As for the finding entered by the Appellate Authority that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, RCR.No.103/2011 5 we do not find any infirmity about the same and we confirm the same. The revision has to be dismissed. We do so. 6. We notice another aspect of the matter. The monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-, which is being paid by the respondent/tenant, was fixed way back on 28/7/1994. We are sure that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch much more. Therefore, even as we dismiss the revision petition, we are inclined to issue notice to the respondent/tenant for the purpose of refixing the rent tentatively. The result is that the revision petition will stand dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk