IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 65 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.129/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR RCP.61/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN.PETITIONERS/ADDL.APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAPRAKASHAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY (LATE), CHEMBIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SASIDHARAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY (LATE), CHEMBIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SOMA SUNDHARAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY(LATE), CHEMBIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. ARUNA, W/O. CHOZHIYAMKUNNATH MADHAVAN, POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. BABY, W/O. PERUMPARAMBIL RAMAKRISHNAN, PERINJERI P.O., CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.A.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KALATHIPARAMBIL AHAMMU, DOOR NO.474, DIVISION NO.31, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 65 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against him under Section 11(4)(v) – cessation of occupation for more than six months continuously without reasonable cause. The building had been let out to the tenant for conducting business in gold. Admittedly the said business was closed by the tenant. According to the tenant, after closing down the gold business, he has started money lending business as well as the business of doing account works. A surprise commission was issued at the time when the rent control petition was instituted (5/7/2004). Even though the commissioner found the room open, the commissioner did not notice any signs of occupation or activity in the building. Accordingly, the commissioner reported to the court that the RCR.No.65/2011 2 tenant had ceased to occupy the building. The commissioner had made some enquiries with the occupants of the neighbouring rooms who also supported the commissioner's conclusion that the building was not being occupied by the tenant continuously for more than six months. 2. The defence of the tenant was one of outright denial. According to the tenant, he is continuing to do business in money lending and accounting. The rent control petition went for trial and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A4, Exts.B1 to B3, Ext.C1 commission report and oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RWs 1 to 4. The learned Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without reasonable cause. One of the items of evidence, which weighed with the Rent Control Court, was Ext.A4 particulars furnished to the landlord by the KSEB, which were to the effect that there was practically no consumption of the electricity in the petition schedule building. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(v). 3. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment RCR.No.65/2011 3 made a through reappraisal of the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. 4. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.T.M.Chandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would open his submissions by pointing out that the landlord is a very peculiar mindsetted person and that in the first instance the landlord filed a petition on the ground of arrears of rent and thereafter present petition for eviction under Section 11 (4)(v) and lastly yet another petition under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent is also filed. According to the learned counsel, Ext.A4 will not conclusively prove that there has been cessation of occupation. It is business of money lending and accounting that is being done presently. It is not absolutely necessary that electricity should be consumed for conducting the above business. Even on the day the commissioner visited, the building was open. This means that at the time of filing of the rent control petition there was business. According to the learned counsel, the order under Section 11 (4) (v) is not at all sustainable. 5. Lastly, Mr.Chandran submitted that the tenant was RCR.No.65/2011 4 dispossessed through the execution proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the delivery of the building was taken in an illegal manner without issuing notice to the revision petitioner. We do not find any reason to accept the above submission. If there is any illegality in the order passed by the Execution Court to deliver the building over to the landlord, it is open to the tenant to challenge that order under Section 14 before the District Court, Thrissur. We permit the petitioner to invoke the remedy available to him under Section 14. 5. As for the present proceedings the only question which arises for decisio is whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or improprieties as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The above question, in our view, can be answered only in the negative. We have gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We notice that the finding therein that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without reasonable cause is founded on evidence. When reasonable findings founded on evidence are entered by the statutory RCR.No.65/2011 5 authorities, in this revisional jurisdiction this court is not expected to substitute those findings by venturing upon a redressal of the evidence. Ext.A4 clearly shows that electricity was not being consumed in the building at all during the statutory period of six months. True at the time of inspection by the commissioner, the building was found open. But the commissioner did notice that there was no sign of any activity being done in the building. We do not any illegality or impropriety as contemplated by Section 20 about the judgment of the Appellate Authority or that of the Rent Control Court. Moreover, we notice that the tenant has been evicted also. For all these reasons, the revision petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk