IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 453 of 2011 --------------------------- RCA.24/2011 of D.C., KOLLAM RC(OP).31/2009 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARUN YESUDAS, S/O YESUDAS, R/A THITTAVILA VEEDU, KANNANELLOOR P.O., KOLLAM 691576 CARMEL ENGINEERING WORKS, NEAR BENZIGAR HOSPITAL, KOLLAM - 691001. 2. BEATRICE, W/O YESUDAS, R/A THITTAVILA VEEDU, KANNANELLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 576. 3. SHANI, D/O YESUDAS, VARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALAKKODE P.O., PARAVUR, KOLLAM 691302 4. RINI, RAJU BHAVAN, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 691 583. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RCRev..No. 453 of 2011 -2- RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN PILLAI CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHANDRA BHAVAN, VENDAR MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P. ANIL KUMAR, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, VENDAR P.O., PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 507 ADV. LEO GEORGE FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R No.453 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court passing order of eviction against the revision petitioners on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority is a common judgment in two other Rent Control Appeals also. The other appeals were preferred by other tenants of the respondents who were also sought to be evicted on the ground under Section 11(3). The need projected by the landlord was that he wants to put up a three storied building the ground floor portion of which is needed to be used by him for conducting a Super Market and the upper two floors needed by him bona fide for the conduct of a lodging house. The Rent Control Court passed R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -2- an order of joint trial. The revision petitioners filed objections to the RCP disputing the bona fides. It was contended that the very purchase by the respondent of the building was made by him in collusion with the previous owner who was unsuccessful in evicting the tenants on the same ground as the local authority did not issue them with a permit for the construction of a shopping complex on a valid reason. It was contended that the permit on the basis of which the shopping complex cum lodging building is proposed to be constructed by the landlords is not a valid one. For whatever reasons permit was denied to the former landlords the permit is liable to be denied to the present landlord also. Apart from the above contentions it was contended that the intention of the landlords is either to let out to new tenants on exorbitant rents or to dispose of the properties as it is certain that the landlord who is presently settled abroad will never come down to Kollam for conducting Super Market or lodging house as he claims. The revision petitioner also claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub Section R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -3- 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court which tried all the cases jointly conducted enquiry and in the enquiry, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A23, B1 to B13, C1 to C3, Exts.X1 to X7 series, PW1, CPW1 to CPW5 and CWs.1 to 3. On evaluating the evidence the Rent Control Court would turn down the contentions raised by the tenants including the revision petitioner. It was held that the need is bona fide. It was also held that the revision petitioner is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3). The revision petitioner and the other tenants carried appeals to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appeals preferred by the revision petitioners are RCA.24/11, RCA.28/11 and RCA.29/11. Under the impugned judgment the learned Appellate Authority after making a re-appraisal of the evidence has dismissed all the appeals. 2. In this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Smt.C.G.Preetha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -4- submissions before us based on all the grounds. Though Smt.Preetha addressed submissions based on all the grounds she would give more thrust in her submissions to the ground that the respondents did not have a valid plan and licence for carrying out the proposed re-construction without which the accomplishment of the need projected under Section 11(3) will be impossible. She submitted that the permit on the basis of which the construction of the new shopping complex building is proposed to be conducted is challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal after admitting the appeal is actually conducting an enquiry. The landlord has filed an application to have a measurement of the property surveyed before the Tribunal. The Travancore Devaswom Board has taken a stand which is in support of the revision petitioner. There is every likelihood of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allowing the appeal and setting aside the permit. If the revision petitioners are evicted from the building immediately, the resultant situation will be that R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -5- the appeal which is presently pending before the Tribunal will be rendered infructuous. 3. Sri.Leo George who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the revision was permitted to address his submissions in support of the impugned judgment. Sri.Leo would support the impugned judgment and submit that there is absolutely no necessity warranting interference within the well delineated contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20. He submitted that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are not expected to go into the intricacies of the permit issued by the local authority. Those courts need only consider whether the local authorities has issued a plan and licence to the landlord. That is a position which even the revision petitioners do not dispute. 4. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The main question which arises before us for decision is whether the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners under sub R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -6- Section 3 of Section 11 warrants interference within the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the factual finding on the important questions as to whether the need is bona fide and the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisos to sub Section 3 of Section 11 have been entered concurrently by the two authorities on the basis of appreciation of evidence available on record. According to us, since those are reasonable findings entered by the statutory fact finding authorities especially the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, this Court is not expected to upset those findings in the absence of any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. We do not find any such illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 5. We shall now deal with the point upon which thrust R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -7- was given by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before us. It is not disputed that an appeal has been filed as appeal No.150/11 by the petitioners against the permit issued by the local authority in favour of the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the above appeal is being enquired into. Even though it is not possible to say anything touching the merits of that appeal it appears to us that the above appeal is being prosecuted with all seriousness by the revision petitioners. The submission of Smt.Preetha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that an abrupt eviction will result in the above appeal being rendered infructuous has some appeal to us. Under the above circumstances, even as we confirm the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are inclined to direct the execution court to keep the delivery proceedings in abeyance till 30/09/12 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall pay occupational charges for the building occupied by him with effect from 01/01/12 at the rate of ` 1,500/- per mensem. R. C. R No.453 of 2011 -8- It is open to the revision petitioner to prosecute appeal No.150/11 in the meanwhile. If the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions allows the appeal and interferes with the permit granted to the respondents it is open to the revision petitioners to appraise the execution court of the matter and the execution court at any rate will order delivery only after ensuring that the respondents are having a current valid building permit for carrying out the proposed construction. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE