IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 356 of 2011() ------------------------ (RCA NO.103/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY TALIPARAMBA IN RCP NO. 13/2004 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, TALIPARAMBA) REVN.PETITIONERS/1ST RESPONDENT./1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- M/S. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER,P.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE P.V.SAMY, AGED 64 YEARS, R/A. KERALAKAL, AZCHAVATTAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER. -------------------------------------------------- 1. KURUPAN LAKSHMI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM,POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 2. KAYARLAVAN GIRIJA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM,POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 3. KAYARLAVAN RAMESHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN, BUSINESS, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 4. KAYARLAVAN RATHEESHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN, BUSINESS, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 5. KAYARLAVAN SURESHKUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, (DIED)S/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN, BUSINESS, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 6. K.VINOD, ATED 33 YEARS, S/O.KAYARALAVAN DAMODARAN, BUSINESS, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 7. DR.AALINKEEL BALAKRISHNA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM,TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 8. AALINKEEL PADMANABHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI,BUSINESS,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 9. AALINKEEL KOMALAVALLI, AGED 51 YEARS, (DIED),R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 10. AALINKEEL NARAYANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, JOB IN CIVIL SUPPLIES, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 11. MANDOTTI LAKSHMI AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.KAYARALAVAN NARAYANAN, R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 12. KAYARALAVAN RAJENDRANKUMAR, S/O.KAYARALAVAN NARAYANAN, AGED44 YEARS, BUSINESS,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 13. K.ASHOKAN, S/O.S/O.KAYARALAVAN NARAYANAN, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 14. VASANTHAKUMARI T. AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.K.YESODHAN,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 15. PREMADAS T., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.YESODHAN,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 16. SUDHARMAKUMARI T., AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.K.YESODHAN,R/A.TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, TRICHAMBRAM DESOM, POOKOTH TERU-670 141. 17. CHITHRALEKHA K, W/O.LATE SURESHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA, THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. 18. NIVEDITHA SURESHKUMAR,AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR),REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN CHITHRALEKHA K, W/O.LATE SURESHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA,THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. 19. ANAMIKA SURESHKUMAR,AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR),REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN CHITHRALEKHA K, W/O.LATE SURESHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA,THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. 20. PRAMOD T.V., S/O.KOMALAVALLY, AGED 35 YEARS,TALIPARAMBA,THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. 21. BIJU T.V, S/O.KOMALAVALLY, AGED 33 YEARS TALIPARAMBA,THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. 22. RESHMI VIPIN RAJ, D/O.KOMALAVLLY, AGED 30 YEARS,BY MOTHER GUARDIAN CHITHRALEKHA K, W/O.LATE SURESHKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, TALIPARAMBA,THRICHAMBARAM-670 141. (SUPPL.R17 TO 22 IMPLEADED AND AMENDED AS PER ORDER 1121/10AND1122/2010 OF RCA, DT.22/07/2010). 23. K.RATHEESHKUMAR, TALIP0ARAMBA, TRICHAMBARAM, POOKOTH THERU-670 141. 24. K.SURESHKUMAR, TALIPARAMBA, TRICHAMBARAM, POOKOTH THERU-670 141. 25. UMESHAN, TALIPARAMBA, TRICHAMBARAM, POOKOTH THERU-670 141. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.358/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos.356 & 358 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these revisions filed by the tenant - the Kerarla Transport Company is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii). Under the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) and has set aside the order declining eviction under Section 11 (3) and remanded the rent control petition to the Rent Control Court for fresh decision as to whether the need is bona fide and also as to whether the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. We shall first deal with the eviction order passed under Section 11 (2)(b) concurrently. There was dispute between the parties as to the contract rent. According to the revision RCR.Nos. 356 & 358/2011 2 petitioner, the contract rent was only Rs.100/- per month, while according to the respondents/landlords, the same was Rs.300/- per month. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings in favour of the landlords regarding the contract rent (quantum not being in serious dispute) have been entered on appreciating the evidence which came on record. According to us, there is no warrant for interference with those findings within the well delineated contours of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. We keep in mind that orders of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b) are tentative orders which are liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). We also keep in mind that the building in question is situated in a commercially an important area of Taliparamba, which is a major municipal town in Kannur District. Hence, we confirm the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) and grant the revision petitioner six weeks time from today for getting the same vacated by invoking the powers under section 11 (2)(c). 3. Eviction was sought under Section 11 (4)(iii) by the landlords on the basis that the tenant is in possession of another RCR.Nos. 356 & 358/2011 3 building which is covered by Ext.A9 property Tax Register. The tenant admitted possession of Ext.A9 building. The contention of the tenant was that the petition schedule building is to be used as an office room and Ext.A9 building is a godown and also that Ext.A9 building is not suitable for conducting office. Even though such a contention was raised by the tenant, the tenant did not adduce any evidence to prove that Ext.A9 building is not suitable for the conduct of business. According to us, the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were justified in taking the view that the tenant has not discharged the burden of proving that Ext.A9 building is not sufficient for their purpose. We do not find any warrant for interference with the eviction order concurrently passed under Section 11(4)(iii). Hence, we confirm the above eviction order. 4. Eviction was sought under Section 11(3) on the ground that the building is needed for occupation by Smt.Nisha, the wife of the 3rd petitioner, for the conduct of business in tailoring and ready made garments. Neither Smt.Nisha nor her husband, the 3rd petitioner, were examined as witnesses. The argument, which was seriously urged before the Rent Control Court, was RCR.Nos. 356 & 358/2011 4 that the bona fides of the need projected has not been established, as neither Smt.Nisha nor her husband, the 3rd petitioner, were examined. The answer to this argument from the landlords' side was that they were unable to get themselves examined on the day the rent control petition stood listed for trial, because both of them had to be in Bangalore to attend on a close friend who was undergoing surgery there. The learned Rent Control Court was not impressed by those argument of the landlords. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court found that the landlords were unsuccessful in establishing the bona fides of the need and declined the order of eviction under Section 11(3). 5. Under the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the landlords has remanded the issue. The Appellate Authority has virtually given an opportunity to the landlords to adduce further evidence for establishing the bona fides of the need. The Appellate Authority noticed another aspect of the matter that the first floor of the building in question fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings. According to the Appellate Authority, the applicability of the first proviso to section 11 (3) is a matter RCR.Nos. 356 & 358/2011 5 which should be examined by the Rent Control Court. Hence, order of remand was passed for considering the question of bona fides of the need under Section 11 (3) and also the applicability of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. 6. Even though apparently serious grounds have been raised against the order of remand and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged appealing submissions before us challenging the order of remand, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we feel that the action of the Appellate Authority in remanding the claim under Section 11(3) cannot be said to be illegal , irregular and improper to the extent of warranting corrections under Section 20. We are not inclined to interfere 7. The Revision Petitions will stand dismissed. 8. After we made our decision known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he requested that at least one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. Under the above circumstances, even as we confirm the impugned judgment, we are inclined to issue notice to the landlords for determining the extent of time to be given to the RCR.Nos. 356 & 358/2011 6 revision petitioner. Hence the result of the above discussion is as follows; The Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2)(b) and 11 (4)(iii) and the order of remand passed on the ground under section 11 (3). PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk