IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 145 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.131/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.12/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- ARAKKALAVAN RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 59 YEARS, BUSINESS, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SMT.SHERINA MEERAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ 1. VELLACHERI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.PARU AMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KUNNARU DESOM. 2. PANNERI KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.KALLIYANI AMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, DESOM, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST RESPONDENT VELLACHERI KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.PARU AMMA, AGED 55 YEARS, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, KANNARU DESOM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.145 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant, against whom an order of eviction has been concurrently passed under sub section (8) of Section 11 of Act 20 of 1965, is the revision petitioner. In fact, the landlord respondent had invoked the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide own occupation also. The ground of arrears of rent was not considered by the authorities below, since it was found that the entire arrears alleged was discharged during the pendency of the proceedings. The ground under sub section (3) of Section 11 was also not considered, since it was submitted on behalf of the landlord that the case need be considered only under sub section (8) of Section 11. The evidence before the rent control court consisted of oral testimony of PW1 the landlord and that of RW1 the tenant. The documentary evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of Exts.A1 to A3 and on the side of tenant consisted of Exts.B1 to B5. The report submitted by the Commissioner was marked in evidence as Ext.C1. The rent control court, on an evaluation of evidence, concluded that the need projected by the RCR.No.145/2009 2 landlord, who is conducting footwear business in another part of the larger building of which the petition schedule building is a part, for expanding his footwear business by doing that business in the petition schedule building also was bonafide. That court also found that the advantages which will enure to the landlord by getting eviction will far out weigh hardship, if any which may be occasioned to the tenant, who will continue to be a tenant of an adjacent room belonging to another landlord. The appellate authority, on an reappraisal of the evidence, concurred with all the conclusion of the rent control court and passed order of eviction under sub section (8) of Section 11. 2. In this revision under Section 20 of the Act various grounds have been raised assailing the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner. Sri.Philip M.Varghese, learned counsel for the revision petitioner tenant addressed us extensively on all those grounds. The learned counsel highlighted that the building is very old and that the proposal of the landlord to construct a new staircase so as to enable him to make use of the first floor portion, which is presently under user by the tenant is not practicable. According to him, the age and RCR.No.145/2009 3 physical condition of the building is such that construction of staircase will result in collapse of the entire building. He further submitted that without the consent from the owners of the adjacent building, it will not be possible to carry out construction of staircase and other alterations which are proposed by the landlord. Sri.Philip M.Varghese also submitted that at an earlier point of time, the landlord had issued notice to the tenant demanding eviction on the ground of bonafide own occupation. However, no action was taken pursuant to that notice when the tenant offered higher rent which was accepted by the landlord. The need and the claim, according to the learned counsel, are not at all bona fide. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Under the statutory scheme, the final court on facts is the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and we notice that all the findings entered therein are founded on evidence. It is not as though the contentions now raised before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner were not considered by the authorities below. RCR.No.145/2009 4 We find that those contentions have been considered and the authorities below have given reasonable findings against the tenant revision petitioner on those contentions. We do not think that there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about those findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. It is trite that the standards of bonafides to be established in a case where eviction is sought under sub Section (8) of Section 11 is not so rigorous as in a case under sub Section (3) of Section 11. We do not find any infirmity about the findings of the authorities below. The RCR is liable to be failed and the same will stand dismissed. 4. As his last submission, Sri.Philip M.Varghese, sought for 10 months time to surrender the premises. We are not inclined tog rant so much of time. However, on considerations of indulgence, we are of the view that time can be granted till 31/1/2010 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner shall file affidavit before the Execution Court or before the rent control court as the case RCR.No.145/2009 5 may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 31/1/2010 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent, if any and also to pay the rent which falls due till the date of actual surrender of the petition schedule building at the current rent rate without fail. ii). If such affidavit is noticed by the concerned court within the time stipulated by us, the the rent control court shall not order or effect delivery of the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31/1/2010. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk