IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 288 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.22/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-III), KASARAGODE RCP.2/2007 of RENT CONTROLLER (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF),KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL SECRETARY, ALIYA ARABIC COLLEGE COMMITTEE A REGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PARAVANADUKKAM IN CHEMNAD VILLAGE, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VANJIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. 2. PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR TALUK & DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.288 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 Order Balakrishnan, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant preferred appeal. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. Hence this revision. 2. We have heard Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in detail. 3. The landlord, Aliya Arabic College Committee represented by its General Secretary sought eviction of the petition schedule building which is situated in Kasaragod town for their office purpose. The tenant resisted the petition contending that the landlord-College Society is RCR 288/10 2 having so many vacant buildings in Kasaragod town itself and that the college is situated at Paravanadukkam, about 10 K.Ms. away from Kasaragod town and that the need alleged is only a pretext for eviction. 4. Before the Rent Control Court the tenant filed Exts.B4, B6 and other documents to show that the landlord is having vacant building in their possession in Kasaragod town where the petition schedule building is situated. The learned Rent Controller though found that the buildings bearing door Nos.III/1432, III/1433 and 105 B are shown as lying vacant, no endorsement is seen made regarding the deduction of tax and so it was found that those buildings were actually not lying vacant. On that reason, the plea raised by the tenant under the first proviso to Section 11(3) was declined by the Rent Control Court. 5. The learned Appellate Authority after reappreciating the evidence found that Exts.B4 to B6 are admissible in evidence. The fact that no endorsement or entry is there with regard to the deduction of tax in respect of those RCR 288/10 3 buildings does not assume any significance since the question is whether the building tax assessment register maintained by the local authority would show that those buildings are lying vacant. As per Section 26 of the Act, the certified extracts of the building tax assessment registers are to be received in evidence of the facts stated therein. No contra evidence was adduced by the landlord to show that those buildings were let out. If, as a matter of fact, those buildings were let out long prior to the filing of the R.C.P. that could have been proved by producing the rent deeds. The landlord produced no documents to substantiate their claim. The Appellate Authority was therefore perfectly justified in holding that the landlord was in possession of the vacant buildings as evidenced by Exts.B4 to B6. Since that finding was entered on legal evidence by the Appellate Authority, which is the final fact finding authority, we see no reason to upset that finding. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereunder the claim for RCR 288/10 4 eviction under Section 11(3) was disallowed, reversing the order of the Rent Control Court. Hence, this revision fails and is dismissed. 6. We notice that the petition schedule building was leased out about 25 years back. The rent that is being paid by the tenant is only Rs.1000/- per month. Considering all facts, we find it just and proper that the tenant-respondent is directed to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- with effect from 1.7.2011. This fixation is only tentative. Either of the parties aggrieved by the said fixation, can file petition under Section 5 before the Rent Control Court. We make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the petitioner initiating fresh proceedings for vacating the respondent on all available grounds including the ground under Section 11(3) on a changed circumstance. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 288/10 5 RCR 288/10 6