IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 362 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.25/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY KOLLAM RCP.14/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.DR.K.N.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, SYAM NIVAS, HOUSE NO.1638B, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SASEENDRAN PILLAI @ SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, THANKAM BHAVAN, PULLICHIRA POST, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AMBIKA - DO -DO- 691303. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 362 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. Though eviction was sought and granted on the ground of arrears of rent also, it is submitted by Sri.R.Sathish Kumar learned counsel for the revision petitioner that as the entire arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Appellate Authority has been deposited, we in this revision need have to be concerned only with the order of eviction passed concurrently under sub section(3) of Section 11. 2. The need projected by the landlord was that the ground floor portion of the petition schedule building, which is a double storied building, is needed for the residence of his dependent son who is examined as PW2 and that the first floor portion occupied RCR.No.362/2011 2 by the revision petitioner is needed by PW2 for the conduct of a tuition centre. There was a further need that PW2 wants to get married and an independent residence as well as commencement of the tuition centre is to be accomplished after the marriage and getting possession of the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed and it was specifically contended that the landlord is having possession of another building very near to the petition schedule building and hence the Rent Control Petition is liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The landlord got himself examined as PW1 and his dependent son was examined as PW2. Though counter evidence was adduced by the revision petitioner, the oral evidence adduced by the landlord and his son impressed the statutory authorities, who found that the need is bona fide. It was also found that the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section1 1 will not have any application in this case as there was no evidence to hold that the other building pointed out by the tenant was vacant at the time when the litigation commenced. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. RCR.No.362/2011 3 3. The Appellate Authority on re- appreciating the evidence concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and accordingly dismissed the rent control appeal. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.R.Sathish Kumar learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed submissions before us based on the grounds raised. He highlighted that the appreciation of evidence by the statutory authorities is not proper and that as a matter of fact another similar double storied building was under the vacant possession of the landlord at the time when the landlord commenced the present eviction proceedings. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.Sathish Kumar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and we have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. We remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. Revisional jurisdiction under section 20 does not ordinarily enable us to make reappraisal of the evidence and substitute factual RCR.No.362/2011 4 conclusions arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate Authority especially when those findings are reasonable findings founded on evidence. According to us, the findings entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority regarding the bona fides of the need and the applicability of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 are findings founded on evidence. We do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety about those findings which means that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 6. The revision necessarily will have to fail and will stand dismissed. After our decision was made known to Sri.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel requested that indulgence be shown and at least time till 15/4/2012 be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant to surrender the premises. We feel that there is justification for granting so much of time. Hence, even as we dismiss the revision, there will be a direction to the Execution Court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 15/4/2012 subject to the following conditions; i). The revision petitioner will file an affidavit within three weeks before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as RCR.No.362/2011 5 the case may be undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent landlord on or before 15/4/2012 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent if any due within month from from today and to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate of Rs.3000/- per month till actual surrender is given to the landlord. ii). We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time as allowed above, only if he files the affidavit and honours the undertakings therein. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk