IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 98 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.97/2007 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.9/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- P.V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.APPU, CIVIL STATION P.O., NEDUNGOTTUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- N.HEMAMALINI, D/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, 'NIRMALYAM', NELLIKKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 98 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The tenant challenges in this revision under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground under sub-section (3) of Section 11. The building in question is a residential building. The need projected by the landlady under sub-section (3) of Section 11 was that the building is required for occupation by her son Nipinlal, so that he can reside there after getting married. The bonafides of the need was disputed seriously by the respondent. The Rent Control Court enquired into the RCP and at trial evidence was given not only by the landlady but also by Nipinlal who was examined as PW-2. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was found convincing by the Rent Control Court. The court accordingly allowed the application and ordered eviction under sub-section (3) of RCR. 98 of 2010 - 2 - Section 11. The tenant preferred appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Before the appeal was taken up for final hearing the tenant filed application before the Appellate Authority seeking leave of the court to serve interrogatories on the respondent landlady in connection with what the tenant described as a subsequent event which had eclipsed the need projected by the landlady in the rent control petition. According to the tenant, PW-2 had in the meanwhile secured a permanent employment in Hyderabad and therefore there is no need for him to occupy the building for own occupation. The Appellate Authority granted leave and the interrogatories were answered by PW-2 who we are told was present in the court hall when the application was considered. According to PW-2 he belongs to Calicut and is a permanent resident of Calicut. But presently he is undergoing training as “Trainee Animator” at Data Quest Entertainment, Hyderabad and in connection with that only, he is staying temporarily at RCR. 98 of 2010 - 3 - Hyderabad. He answered further that his employment at Hyderabad is not a permanent one and also that his residence at Hyderabad is only a temporary one from 16-1- 2008 onwards. The Appellate Authority accepted the answers given by PW-2 as convincing and held that the event of the son of PW-2 being presently employed at Hyderabad is not an event of such a fundamental impact as to completely eclipse the need projected by the landlady in the RCP. In this context, the learned Appellate Authority relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad v. Shrivastava, AIR 2001 SC 803. On reappraising the evidence the Appellate Authority did not find any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the order of the Rent Control Court and accordingly by the impugned judgment the eviction order was confirmed. 2. In this revision under section 20 various grounds have been raised and we have heard the submissions of Sri. K.P. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the revision RCR. 98 of 2010 - 4 - petitioner and those of Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent landlady who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the RCR. Even though various grounds have been raised in the revision and Sri.Balasuabramanian addressed arguments on the basis of those grounds he gave more thrust to the ground which pertains to the subsequent event of PW-2 securing employment at Hyderabad. According to Mr.Balasubramanian, it is evident that the landlady's son PW-2 is residing in Hyderabad since January 2008 till date. Apart from answering the interrogatories, no evidence and much less documentary evidence was adduced by PW-2 to substantiate his contention that he is employed in Hyderabad only as a Trainee Animator. This is an aspect which is capable of documentary evidence available at the disposal of PW-2. The non-production of such documentary evidence is a circumstance which will justify drawal of adverse inference against the landlady and PW-2. Mr.Balasubramanian submitted that the matter is to be RCR. 98 of 2010 - 5 - examined at greater depth and requested that the RCR be admitted and interim orders be passed staying dispossession. Sri. Balasubramanian also referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Seshambal v. Chelur Corporation, 2010 KLT 834 (SC). 3. Sri.P.B.Krishnan would oppose all the submissions of Mr.Balasubramanian. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad's case. According to Mr. Krishnan, there is no comparison between the facts of the Seshambal's case and the present case. In the present case the need projected is that PW-2, son of PW-1, the landlady who has come up marriageable age wants to get married and reside in the building along with his wife. It was very convincing evidence that was given by PW-1 and PW-2. The credibility of PW-2 was not shaken in cross examination at all. Subsequent event highlighted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not an event of such a fundamental impact as being capable of completely RCR. 98 of 2010 - 6 - eclipsing the need which has been accepted by the courts below to be a bona fide one based on evidence. He pointed out that even in the memorandum of rent control appeal no ground has been alleged in relation to the so called subsequent event. It is only through the interrogatories that the subsequent event was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. Interrogatories were convincingly answered. Revision petitioner need not have legitimate apprehension that the building will be let out or disposed of after he is evicted. Subsection (12) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 will take care of even legitimate apprehensions in the minds of tenants. 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We don't think that there is any comparison between the facts of Seshambal's case decided by the Supreme Court recently and the facts which obtain in the present case. In the present case, the need projected was that PW-2 a young man who belongs to RCR. 98 of 2010 - 7 - Calicut and has come of marriageable age wants to get married and needs the building for separate residence along with his newly wedded wife. That case was found to be genuine. Such a claim in our opinion is one that can be presumed to be genuine unless shown to be actuated by oblique motives by the tenant on the basis of cogent evidence. In this case PW-1 the mother landlady and PW-2 the son gave evidence. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was found to be convincing by the Rent Control Court which had the advantage of recording their evidence. The Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts reappraised that evidence and concurred with the Rent Control Court. It is seen that PW-2 has during the pendency of the rent control appeal secured an employment at Hyderabad in computer animation. It is true that no document showing the nature of the employment - whether it is permanent or temporary has been produced by the respondents. But then the evidence RCR. 98 of 2010 - 8 - of PW-1 was that he wants to get married and settled down at Calicut. That being the evidence and the same having been accepted by the fact finding authorities under the statute we do not think that in the event of PW-2 securing an employment in Hyderabad even if it is permanent in nature will be an event of such an impact as to completely eclipse the need of PW-2 a young man to get married and settled down in his home town. We also notice that in Information and Software Industry young professionals go on quitting jobs for newer and better ones and the traditional concept of one being permanently employed in one establishment till he attains the age of superannuation is not the order of the day in that Industry. 5. Moreover, subsection (12) of Section 11 takes ample care of a situation where PW-2 does not occupy the building for the need projected by the landlady in the RCP after evicting the revision petitioner. If the revision petitioner finds that after he is evicted PW-2 does not come and RCR. 98 of 2010 - 9 - occupy the building or that he has let out the building to somebody else or has inducted others into the building under some other arrangement it is always open to the revision petitioner to move the Rent Control Court and we are sure that the Rent Control Court will issue appropriate directions so that the remedy provided to tenants evicted under subsection (3) of Section 11 becomes effective and meaningful. 6. As a last submission Mr. Balasubramanian requested that atleast 18 months time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. He submitted that along with the revision petitioner two of his sisters who are very sickly persons are residing and it will be very difficult for the revision petitioner to find out alternate accommodation for the family unless so much of time is granted. Mr. Balasubramanian also submitted that even if it is temporarily, PW-2 who is presently put up at Hyderabad does not need the building urgently. This request was RCR. 98 of 2010 - 10 - opposed by tooth and nail by Mr. Krishnan. However, we feel that the circumstances attending on this case will justify grant of one year's time to the revision petitioner. The monthly rent presently being paid by the revision petitioner is ridiculously low. The same is only Rs.22.50. We are inclined to grant time only subject to the condition that the petitioner pays occupational charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem. The result of the above discussions is as follows: The RCR is dismissed. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 31-3-2011 subject to the following conditions: 1) The revision petitioner shall pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per mensem from 11-4- 2010. 2) The revision petitioner shall discharge arrears of rent if any at the current rate of Rs.22.50 on or before 31-3- RCR. 98 of 2010 - 11 - 2010. 3) The revision petitioner shall file undertaking in the form of affidavit before the execution court within one month from today agreeing to surrender possession of the building to the respondent on or before 31-3-2011. The revision petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of the time granted as above, unless affidavit as ordered above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-