IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 71 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.156/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY RCP.5/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- THE DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS & --------------------------- 2ND RESPONDENT 1. C.V.LAKSHMI, W/O.C.V.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 86 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT SAIBABA NILAYAM, KOKKANCHERRY, PAYYANNUR. KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.V.CHANDRAMATHI, D/O.C.V.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAIBABA NILAYAM, KOKKANCHERRY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. E.P.SHYAMALA, W/O. JANASEKHARAN, KUTTOOR HOUSE, KONDOTH P.O., PAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN FOR R1&2 SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/06/2009, THE COURT ON 25/6/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.C.R. 71 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 25, 2009 ORDER Barkath Ali, J. This is a revision filed under sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act (in short the Act) by the 1st respondent/tenant in RCP 5/2002 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Payyannur, who is the appellant in RCA 156/2003 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge – Ad hoc – II), Thalassery, challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority, dated March 27, 2007 reversing the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP and ordering eviction under sec.11(4)(iii) of the Act. 2. Revision respondents 1 and 2, the landlords, filed the RCP before the Munsiff's Court claiming eviction under sec.11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, on the ground that they bona fide require the building for their own occupation, that the revision petitioner/tenant, who is M/s. Payyannur Khadi Center represented by its Director, has sublet the building to the 3rd revision respondent and also that the tenant is in possession of another building which is reasonably sufficient for their R.C.R. 71 OF 2008 2 requirement. Before the Rent Control Court Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked for the landlords and Rws.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B17 were marked on the side of the tenants. The advocate-commissioner was examined as CW.1 and his reports were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. 3. During the pendency of the RCP, the landlords did not press the claim for eviction under sec.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the tenant has not sublet the building to the 3rd revision respondent who is the 2nd respondent in the RCP and rejected the claim of eviction under sec.11(4)(ii) of the Act. The Rent Controller also found that the tenant is not in possession of another building reasonably sufficient for his requirement and dismissed the RCP. On appeal by the landlords before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority though confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the landlords are not entitled to claim eviction under sec.11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act, ordered eviction under sec.11(4)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has acquired a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement. The tenant has come up in revision challenging the said judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority. R.C.R. 71 OF 2008 3 4. The only point which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the finding of the appellate authority that the tenant has acquired another building reasonably sufficient for his requirement and ordering eviction under sec.11(4)(iii) of the Act can be sustained. 5. It is admitted by the tenant that they are in possession of building No.XXIII/386, but would say that the tenant could not carry out their business in that premises, that the tenant is the Payyannur Khadi Centre represented by its Director and that about 25 staff members are working in that unit in that building. The learned counsel for the landlords would submit that there are vacant rooms in that building in which the tenant can shift their business. 6. For the following reasons we are inclined to hold that the Appellate Authority is justified in holding that there is sufficient space in the building of the revision petitioner to carry on their business. The commissioner who inspected the said premises filed his report Ext.C2 and was also examined as CW.1. The commissioner initially inspected the premises on December 4, 2002 at 4 p.m. He would report that two rooms on the eastern side of the building were seen locked and that the 1st respondent in the RCP represented to him that it is used as a godown. The R.C.R. 71 OF 2008 4 commissioner again visited these rooms on March 6, 2003. At that time he found that the Khadi materials are stored in these two rooms. According to the landlords the tenant has filled up these rooms with clothes to obtain a favourable report from the commissioner. The Appellate Authority has found that the tenant had purposely closed those rooms at the time of the first visit of the commissioner and that subsequently they filled it with khadi materials to show that they have no other rooms for their requirement. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the evidence adduced by both parties before the trial court. We are also of the view that the tenant purposely did not open the rooms during the first visit of the commissioner. The explanation offered by RW.3 who is the alleged custodian of those rooms is unconvincing. Therefore we are in complete agreement with the finding of the Appellate Authority and that the tenant was in possession of two rooms in building No. XXIII/386 which are reasonably sufficient for their requirements. The Appellate Authority has negatived the contention of the tenant that they cannot conduct their business in that premises. That being so, the Appellate Authority is justified in ordering eviction under sec.11(4)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the tenant is in possession of a building reasonably R.C.R. 71 OF 2008 5 sufficient for its requirement. For all these reasons the above finding of the Appellate Authority has to be confirmed and the revision has to be dismissed. In the result, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. One month time is granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the building to the landlords. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-