IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No. 5 of 2010() ---------------------- RCA.56/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.70/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------- S.KUMARESAN ASSARI, S/O. SUBRAMONIAN ACHARY, NEAR SALVATION ARMY, ALAKATHUKONAM, MUKKOLACKAL, NEDUMANGADU, PROPRIETOR, MEENA JEWELLARY T.C.39/481,CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- A.SREEKUMAR, S/O. ARMUGHAN ASSARI, T.C.38/2844, SELVA BHAVAN, PAZHAYASALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM -36. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.5 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7 th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He was sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide need for own occupation and cessations of occupation. The Rent Control Court, in the first instance, passed an order of summary eviction under section 12 (3). Against that order, the tenant filed RCA No.44/2003, which was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority imposing a condition that the tenant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 71,000/- on or before 25/2/2005. It appears that the above condition was complied with by the tenant and the Rent Control Court proceeded to adjudicate the RCP on its merits. The Rent Control Court after trial would allow the RCP on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and cessation of occupation. 2. The tenant filed RCA No.55/2008 before the Appellate Authority. By the judgment, which is impugned in this revision, RCR.No.5/2010. 2 the learned Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the bona fides of the need;the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, confirmed the order of eviction passed under section 11(3). Similarly, the Appellate Authority would concur with the Rent Control Court in its findings in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(v) and confirm the order of eviction which was passed on that ground. 3. The one point, which is seriously urged before us by Sri.S.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as instructed by learned Advocate Abbobacker Kunhi, is that the Rent Control Court was not at all justified in considering the case of the landlord for eviction on the grounds under Section 11 (3) and 11(4)(v) since the Rent Control Court in the first instance had declined order of eviction on those grounds and had passed order of eviction only on the ground of arrears of rent. According to him, RCA No.44/2003 was preferred by the tenant revision petitioner against the order of eviction, which the Rent Control Court had passed, on the ground of arrears of rent and the landlord's eligibility for eviction order on the grounds of RCR.No.5/2010. 3 bona fide need for own occupation and cessation of occupation were never issues before the Appellate Authority. To our querry as to whether the above argument has been considered by the Appellate Authority, the learned counsel would submit that the above arguments are not seen considered by the Appellate Authority. As directed by us, the learned counsel has placed before us copies of the judgment in RCA No. 44/2003, Memorandum of Appeals in RCA Nos.44/2003 & 55/2008. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which are impugned in this revision. We have also gone through the papers which were placed before us by the learned counsel. We do not find any merit at all in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that order of eviction, which was impugned in RCA No.44/2003, was order under Section 11 (2) (b) only and that eviction sought on the grounds under Section 11 (3) and 11(4)(v) had been declined in favour of the revision petitioner by the Rent Control Court. A perusal of the judgment in RCA No.44/2003 as well as the order, RCR.No.5/2010. 4 which was impugned in that RCA, will clearly show that the Rent Control Court had not adjudicated the merit of the eviction grounds. The eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court was a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). It was that summary order of eviction, which was impugned in RCA No.44/2003. The Appellate Authority allowed RCA No.44/2003 and set aside the above summary order of eviction on the condition that the tenant pays a sum of Rs.71,000/-. Since the above condition was complied with, the order setting aside the summary order became operative and the RCP stood remanded to the Rent Control Court for considering on merits. The order, which is impugned in RCA No.55/2003, was order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court after adjudication. In fact in the enquiry before the Rent Control Court Exts.A1 to A4, Ext.B1, Commission Report C1, witnesses PW1 to PW3 and CPW1 constituted the evidence. It is appreciating the above evidence that the Rent Control Court, by order dated 31/10/2008, directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession on the grounds under Section 11(3) and Section 11(4)(v). However, declined order of eviction under Section 11(2). It is that order RCR.No.5/2010. 5 which was impugned in RCA No.55/22008 and the same is decided by the learned Appellate Authority by the judgment dated 20/10/2009. 5. Even though the point, which was seriously urged before us by Sri.Krishna Mani was the point mentioned above, since we are sitting in a revisinal jurisdiction, we have scanned the order dated 31/10/2008 passed by the Rent Control Court in the Rent Control Proceedings and the judgment dated 29/10/2009 passed by the Appellate Authority in the RCA. The jurisdiction under Section 20 is revisional in nature and this court is not expected ordinarily to reappraise the evidence. The enquiry of this court is only to find out whether the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. We find that the findings entered by the Appellate Authority regarding the bona fides of the need projected by the landlord and also regarding the first and second provisos to subs section (3) of Section 11 are all findings founded on evidence. Equally so, we find that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for more RCR.No.5/2010. 6 than six months without reasonable costs is also founded on evidence. This being so, there is no warrant at all for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. 6. The result of the above discussion is as follows; The RCR will stand dismissed. However, on considerations of indulgence, we direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building (if the revision petitioner is not already evicted) till 31/3/2010 on condition that the revision petitioner will file an affidavit before the Execution Court within seven days from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent/landlord on or before 31/3/2010 and undertaking further to discharge the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority within one month from today and to pay the amounts at the current rent rate till such RCR.No.5/2010. 7 time as he surrenders the building. It is made clear that if the affidavit is not filed on time, the revision petitioner will not be entitled for the benefit of time granted under this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk