IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 222 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.61/2003 of RENT ACONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, THRISSUR RCP.27/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT .,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUNNY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.VARUNNY, POOTHOKKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RAPPAYI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.VARUNNY, POOTHOKKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERY DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.M.M.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------- BIJU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.CHERIYAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, NADATHARA VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 222 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Abdul Rehim , J. Respondents/tenants in RCP No.27/2000 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur is in revision aggrieved by order of eviction passed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short the 'Act'), which was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Autrhotiy Thrissur in RCA NO. 61/2003. 2. The landlord is conducting business in stationery, gift items and plastic items in the ground floor of a larger building in which the petition schedule shop room is situated in the first floor. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that he need the schedule room for additional space for convenience of his business since the space at present available is inadequate. According to the landlord, if the petition schedule room is vacated the same can be utilised for facilitating more prosperity in the business. Eviction was also sought under Section 11 (2) (b) on the allegation that the revision petitioners had defaulted RCR.No.222/2010 2 payment of the arrears of rent in spite of specific demand made, within the period stipulated in the statute. The tenants resisted the rent control petition contending that the need for additional accommodation urged is not genuine. It was contended that the tenants had effected major alterations and improvements in the schedule building by expending huge amounts. According to the tenant, he stated business in the locality long back and there are no other suitable buildings available for shifting the business. It is also contended that the tailoring business being conducted in the schedule room could not be easily shifted since there are many sewing machines and other equipments installed in the premises and that so many workers are engaged by the tenant for conduct of business. 3. Before the trial court the landlord adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 documents were marked on his behalf . From the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B10 were produced and RWs1 and 2 were examined. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord inspired the Rent Control Court to find that the need for additional accommodation urged by the landlord is RCR.No.222/2010 3 genuine and bonafide. From the various evidence, including Ext.C1 commission report, the rent control court arrived at a conclusion that the business conducted by the landlord in the ground floor is lacking space and the schedule premises, can be utilized for storage and exhibition of more articles. It is also found that the tenants were not successful in proving that there is no arrears of rent. With respect to evaluation of comparative hardships under Section 11 (10), it was contended by the tenants that they are occupying the premises since the year 1938 on wards. But from the evidence the trial court found that the entrustment was only in the year 1961 and there is no evidence to prove that the tailoring business was conducted in the schedule premises since 1938 onwards as alleged by the tenants. It is also found that the tenants could not prove through any convincing evidence that they had expended huge amount as alleged for any alterations or modifications in the premises. The tenants had also failed in proving through any convincing evidence that no other suitable accommodation is available in the locality to shift the business which is being conducted in the schedule premises. The trial court found that RCR.No.222/2010 4 the landlord is lacking space and the advantages, which he derives by evicting the tenants, will certainly outweigh the hardships which will be caused for the tenants if the building is to be vacated. Hence, eviction was ordered under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11(8). 4. The Appellate Authority had re-apprised the entire evidence. Considering various aspects, the learned Judge had fully concurred with the findings of the trial court. The order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11 8) were confirmed. 5. Mr.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners advanced various contentions before us. According to him, the evaluation of comparative hardships done by the Courts below are totally erroneous. Relying on Ext.C1 commission report, the learned counsel attempted to convince us that a lot of workers are being engaged by the tenants in the tailoring shop and that good number of sewing machines are being used dividing the area into different cabins. According to the revision petitioners, it is practically not possible for shifting the business from the premises. It was also contended that since RCR.No.222/2010 5 the last so many years tenants had acquired considerable goodwill and shifting of the premises to any other place will seriously affect the business. 6. On an appraisal of the impugned judgment of Appellate Authority as well as order of the Rent Control Court, we do not find any illegality or irregularity with respect to the consideration of comparative hardships envisaged under Section 11 (10). The volume of business in the tenanted premises cannot be taken as a criteria for weighing and comparing the hardships of parties. On the other hand, evidence is available to the effect that other suitable buildings are available in the locality for shifting the business of the tenants. As stated above, concurrent findings of the courts below is that availability of the tenanted premises will definitely put the landlord to advantageous position since he is lacking space and the tenanted premises can be utilised conveniently for additional accommodation. Some difficulty in shifting the business which may be projected by the tenants cannot be taken as a hardship which will outweigh the advantages which could be gained by the landlord through occupying the additional space. We find nothing RCR.No.222/2010 6 to disagree with the conclusions arrived by the courts below. In the revisional jurisdiction, which is attenuated in nature, we do not find any material illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned orders. Hence the revision petition deserve no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner lastly made a fervent appeal to this Court for granting time till one year for surrendering the schedule premises. We are not inclined to grant that much time. However, Considering the totality of the circumstances we feel that granting of time till 31/3/2011 will be appropriate and justified. 8. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11 (2)(b). It is left open to the tenants to invoke Section 11 (2) (c), if so advised. 9. In the result, while dismissing the revision petition, the revision petitioners/tenants are granted time till 31/3/2011 for surrendering vacant possession of the schedule building, subject to the following conditions; The revision petitioners/tenants shall file an RCR.No.222/2010 7 affidavit before the Executing Court undertaking to surrender peaceful and vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31/3/2011 and also undertaking to pay arrears of rent if any due within a period of one month from today. By the same affidavit, the revision petitioners shall also undertake to pay occupational charges at the rate of current monthly rent of Rs.1500/-, till surrender of the premises. Affidavit as directed above shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. 10. The Executing Court is directed to put off ordering and effecting delivery of the schedule premises till 1-4-2011, once filing of affidavit as directed above and payment of arrears of rent and occupational charges is noticed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk