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 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 88 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.1/2007 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.148/2005 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): ------------------- SRI.C.RATHAKARA PAI, S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARA PAI, AGED 57, PROPRIETOR, M/S CHANDRASEKHARA PAI & SONS, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH SRI.JOE POLLAYIL SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI. K.P. KRISHNA MENON, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 72 YEARS, KANJIGATT HOUSE, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 88 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965 is the order of eviction concurrently passed against the revision petitioner tenant by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground under clause (iii) of sub section (4) of Section 11. The defence, which was prominently raised by the revision petitioner in answer to the allegation of the landlord that the revision petitioner has put a new building on the T.D.Road not far away from Broadway, where the petition schedule building is situated and that the said building or atleast a portion of the same is reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements, was that T.D. Road is not an area which is suitable for conducting the jewellery business, being conducted in the petition schedule building by the revision petitioner. It was also pointed out in the statement of objections that the ground floor portion of the double storied building put R.C.R..No.88/2009 2 up on the T.D.Road is already let out and what is left with him is the first floor portion only and the first floor portion by no standards can be said to be suitable for carrying on business in jewellery. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence which came on record concluded that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on the reason that he has put up a building on the T.D.Road which is reasonably sufficient for his requirements. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, despite reappraisal of the evidence, would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. This revision petition is filed by the tenant impugning the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on various grounds. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.C.T.Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also those of Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar, who had lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent landlord. 3. Sri.C.T.Joseph, would submit that unlike Broadway, where there are several jeweleries, there is not even a single jewellery on the T.D.Road. According to the learned counsel business on the T.T. Road are mostly in Hardware, Sanitary- R.C.R..No.88/2009 3 ware, Iron & Steel, Flowers, etc. and not in jewellery. The contentions of the revision petitioner were misconstrued by the authorities below resulting in prejudice to the revision petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the authorities below were not justified in relying on the judgment of this court in Kalliani Amma v.Sarojini Amma (2004 (2) KLT 976). According to him, that decision does not answer the plea of the present revision petitioner that a first floor portion of the building on the T.D.Road, which has never been associated with jewellery business, is absolutely unsuitable for the requirements of the tenant. 4. Sri.P.A.Abdul Jabbar, the learned counsel for the landlord was able to meet the submissions of Sri.C.T.Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner tenant. 5. We have anxiously gone through the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority and considered the relevant portions of the pleadings to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel. The jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965 is an attenuated one and we, in this jurisdiction, are not expected to R.C.R..No.88/2009 4 make a de nova reappraisal of the evidence and substitute our findings for the facts entered by the Rent Control Court and particularly by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on fact. Admittedly a double storied building on the T.D.Road was put up by the revision petitioner tenant after he had taken the petition schedule building on lease. Having let out the entire ground floor portion of that building to a tenant of his choice, he cannot now complain that he is unable to carry on jewellery business in the first floor. May be learned counsel Sri.C.T.Joseph is correct when he submits that there are no jeweleries on T.D.Road. But times are changing and the petitioner can make a beginning by starting the 1st jewellery on the T.D.Road in the first floor of his building. The petitioner has been on his admission, in the jewellery business for over 8 decades. We are sure that he would have over these long years, earned a good reputation as a jewelleller. We have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner, who has been conducting jewellery successfully on Broad way all these years, will be able to carry on his business successfully in his own building on T.D.Road. Moreover, this court under R.C.R..No.88/2009 5 Section 11 (4) is not to be unduly concerned with any variation in the tenant's income resulting on account of the shifting of the business. The Legislative object underlying clause(iii) of sub section 4 of Section 11 is that at a time when there is acute accommodation shortage, the tenant should not be allowed the luxury of having more buildings than what is absolutely necessary for him, and extra buildings at the disposal of the tenant should be made available either to the needy landlord or to another needy tenant. Having regard to the narrow contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction of the impugned orders under Section 20 of the Act. 6. Sri.C.T.Joseph, as his last submission made a fervent appeal for grant of one years' time for shifting from the petition schedule building. Sri. Abdul Jabbar would resist the above request tooth and nail. He submitted that it is in evidence that the revision petitioner is having a very spacious building in the name of his wife on the M.G.Road, a road which is famous for jewellery business also. He would further submit that the idea of the petitioner is to cling on to the petition schedule building R.C.R..No.88/2009 6 paying the paltry rent of Rs.130/- per month which he has been paying all these years. 7. Having considered the submissions of Sri.C.T.Joseph and Sri.P.A.Abdul Dabbar on the question of granting time, we are of the view that the circumstances which attend on this case justify granting time to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises till the end of this year i.e. 31/12/2009. However, noticing that it is only a petty amount that is being paid by the petitioner as rent, we are inclined to impose a condition that during the period i.e. with effect from first April 2009 till 31/12/2009, the time which we are giving to the revision petitioner under this judgment, the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. 8. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follows ; i). The Rent Control Revision is dismissed. Iii). The Execution Court is directed to adjourn the delivery of the petition schedule building, presently ordered, to 1/1/2010, provided the following conditions are satisfied; R.C.R..No.88/2009 7 The Revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court on or before 6/4/2009 through which he will undertake that he will give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the landlord on or before 31/12/2009 and will pay rent for the petition schedule building at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from 1-4-2009. Iii). Once the Execution Court notices such an affidavit, that court will adjourn the delivery presently ordered to 1/1/2010. The parties will suffer their costs in this revision. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk