IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 211 of 2003() ------------------------ RCA.72/1999 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.70/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C.L. VARGHESE, S/O. CHITTILAPPILLY LONAPPAN, VALLACHIRA DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.P.SAMUEL RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ DR.P.V. ANTO, S/O. PARAKKAL VAREED, VALLACHIRA DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G. UNNIIKRISHNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 237 OF 2003 AND RCR NO.238 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCRev..No. 211 of 2003 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2160/2003 IN RCR NO.211/2003 DISMISSED 24/11/2009. SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R NOS: 211, 237 & 238 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th November, 2009. O R D E R SURENDRA MOHAN, J. These three revisions are filed by the tenants of three separate shop rooms challenging the common order dated 31.3.2003 in RCA 20/99 and connected appeals of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur, dismissing the Rent Control Appeals filed by them. The Rent Control Appeals were filed against orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in R.C.P. No: 71/97 and connected cases. The Rent Control Petitions were all tried together and the Rent Control Appeals filed against the common judgment were also considered and disposed of together. Therefore, these revisions are also considered together. The evidence in the cases is common and the contentions raised are also identical. 2. The landlord in all these cases is one, Mr. P.V.Anto. He was a medical practitioner who was working in the Government service, posted at various places all over Kerala. He has since retired. While working at Alathaur he had a desire to start an RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 2 Allopathic Clinic and Nursing Home at his native place. For the purpose, he has sought the eviction of the tenants from the respective shop rooms occupied by them. 3. The shop rooms in question form part of the two line buildings situate on opposite sides of a private road. The buildings are situated in Survey No:334/4 of Vallachira Village. The scheduled building in RCR Nos: 237/2003 and 238/2003 form part of a line building having eight shop rooms. The scheduled shop room in RCR 211/2003 forms part of a line building of four shop rooms, that is just opposite to the line building in the other two revisions. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants in RCR 237 and 238/2003 on the ground that he needed the said buildings for starting a clinic of his own in the building. The scheduled room in RCR 211/2003 is alleged to be needed by him for his son who wants to start a business in cement and sanitary wares. 4. The need of the landlord was resisted by the tenants who were in occupation of the different shop rooms contending that his real object was to give the rooms out on higher rent after getting them vacated. The tenants also contended that he owned an extent RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 3 of 75 cents of land in which his ancestral house was situate where he could establish a clinic at considerable advantage and convenience to himself. It is also contended that the landlord had already got three rooms in the same line building vacated and if he were earnest in starting his clinic, he could very well have done so in the rooms that were already in his possession. Therefore, it is contended that the orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. 5. As noticed above, all the Rent Control Petitions were tried together and evidence was taken in common. The landlord was examined as P.W.1 and Exts. A1 to A8 documents were marked on his side. The tenants examined themselves as R.Ws 1 to 4 and marked Exts.B1 to B16 documents. On a consideration of the evidence on record as well as the contentions of the parties, the Rent Control Court allowed all the Rent Control Petitions finding that the need of the landlord had been established to be bonafide and genuine. Against the orders of eviction, separate appeals were filed by the tenants. The Appellate Authority considered all the appeals together and by a common order has dismissed all the RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 4 appeals, confirming the orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court. Pursuant to the orders of the Appellate Authority, all the tenants who were in occupation of the different shop rooms in the two buildings mentioned above, have surrendered vacant possession of their shop rooms to the landlords except the three tenants who have preferred the present revision petitions. 6. We have heard Mr. T.K.Chinnan who appears for the revision petitioner in all the three cases as well as Mr. G. Unnikrishnan who appears for the landlord. We have been taken through the orders of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. We have also been taken through the relevant portions of the evidence, made available by the respective counsel. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel anxiously. 7. The landlord has examined himself as P.W.1. Though he has been subjected to cross examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit his testimony or to doubt the genuineness of the need put forth by him. Both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Court have believed the evidence of the landlord. RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 5 It is pointed out that the son of the landlord was not a person with sufficient educational qualification or experience in running a business. It is further contended that the said need was put forward only as a ruse for eviction. However, as rightly held by the Appellate Authority, no special skill, qualification or previous experience is necessary for conducting a business in cement and sanitary items. A young man without employment is certainly in need of an avocation for earning a decent livelihood. The desire of a father to set up a business for his son who is unemployed also cannot be characterised as whimsical or irrational. The Courts below have rightly found that there are no grounds or justification for doubting the need that is put forward. 8. The courts below have also found that the tenants are not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The burden of proving both the ingredients in the said proviso being on the tenants, the findings of the Authorities below that the burden of establishing the said ingredients have not been discharged by the tenants is also well founded. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 6 the Authorities below. We do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity warranting interference with the findings of the authorities below. Therefore, we confirm the orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. 9. As a last plea, the counsel for the revision petitioner requested for a substantially long period of time for surrendering vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by granting time up to 31.5.2010 for the tenant to vacate the premises subject to appropriate conditions. In the result, it is ordered as follows:- i) The tenant is granted time up to 31.5.2010 to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on condition that he files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31.5.2010. RCR Nos: 211/2003 etc. 7 ii) The tenant shall pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the tenanted premises and shall continue to pay rent in respect of the premises at the contracted rate, till he surrenders vacant possession of the premises. The landlord shall be entitled to execute the order of eviction granted in this case in the event of default on the part of the tenant of any of the above conditions. Subject to the above, the Rent Control Revisions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO: --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: