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 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 183 of 2010() ------------------------ ( RCA.40/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , PALAKKAD RCP.31/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD ) .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/SUPPL.RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VESU W/O RAJAN, IRACHINGAL KALAM, THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, MANNARKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAN S/O.RAJAN, KONGAPPADAM, CANALMEDU, AKATHETHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 3. SELVAN, S/O.RAJAN, KONGAPPADAM, CANALMEDU, AKATHETHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN S/O RAJAN, IRACHINGAL KALAM, THACHAMPARA VILLAGE, MANNARKADU TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. RAMESAN S/O RAJAN, KONGAPPADAM, CANALMEDU, AKATHETHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 6. AMBIKA D/O RAJAN, W/O MANIKANDAN, KALLEKULANGARA, PUDUPPARIYARAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. 7. DHANABHAGYAM D/O RAJAN, W/O SUNDARAN, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ V.M.BHASKARA VARMA S/O KUTTAN MENON, AGED 83 YEARS, PARIMALA NIVAS, KUNNUKADU, AKATHETHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN 678012. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 183 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants challenge in this revision the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the grounds of bona fide need and arrears of rent. The prominent defence raised by the revision petitioners was that they are entitled immunity from eviction by virtue of Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act as upon land leased out to them for commercial and industrial purpose and it was they who put up the petition schedule building and ever since using the same for conducting business. It was also contended that the need is not bona fide and that at any rate they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section. One of the circumstances pointed out for disputing the bona fides of the need was that the landlord is an octogenarian who will not be able to do the proposed business of grocery and stationery at this evening period of his life. However, the Rent Control Court was very much inspired by the oral evidence given by the RCR.No.183/2010 2 landlord as PW1 whose testimony in chief examination was not at all shaken effectively in cross examination. That Court found, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, that the tenants were unsuccessful in establishing that they were lessee of the lands and it was they who put up the building in question for industrial or commercial purposes. That court also found that the tenants were unsuccessful in showing that they satisfy either of the two ingredient of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. On the basis of the findings, order of eviction was passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence throughly and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. 2. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised challenging the findings of the Appellate Authority and Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. The learned counsel submitted that the findings of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court are vitiated by infirmities of the nature contemplated by RCR.No.183/2010 3 Section 20 and hence warrants interference. As a last plea, the learned counsel requested that this Court may grant to the petitioners at least one year's time to surrender the premises if this Court is not inclined to admit the RCR. 3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, we are not ordinarily expected to substitute our conclusions on facts for those entered by the statutory authorities when those conclusions are founded on evidence. Having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final fact finding Authority, we find that findings entered therein in favour of the landlord are all founded on legal evidence on record. The tenants failed miserably in pressing that they were lessees of the land and it was they who put up the building in question. In fact, the documentary evidence clearly shows that the building in question belonged to the respondent landlord only. It was very convincing evidence that was given by PW1 and his version in chief examination was RCR.No.183/2010 4 not at all shaken despite searching cross examination. Thus, according to us, the findings of the learned Appellate Authority are all founded on evidence on record. That being so, there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We are not inclined to grant so much of time as requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. However, we feel that, considering the totality of the circumstances which attend on this case, there is justification for granting time to surrender the premises till 31/1/2011. Hence, even as we confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the RCR, we direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord till 31/1/2011 subject to the following conditions; The first revision petitioner representing herself and other revision petitioners, who are her children, will submit an affidavit within two weeks from today before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/1/2011 and undertaking further that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged RCR.No.183/2010 5 within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate of Rs.450/- per month will also be paid as and when the same falls due till date of actual surrender of the building to the respondent. The revision petitioners will get benefit of time granted above only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk