IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No.112 of 2010 (C) ------------------------------ RCA.21/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (RENT CONTROL), THRISSUR RCP.15/2003 of ADDL. M.C., IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- SIVARAMAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.VAKAYIL NARAYANAN,ASTHAMICHIRA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------ BABY, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.VADAPURAM DEVASSY, KALKUNNU DESOM, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant against whom order of eviction has been concurrently passed by the statutory authorites under the Rent Control Act is in revision. It is on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under sub Section 3 of Section 11 that the order of eviction is passed. The need projected was that the building which is a commercial building is required bona fide for own occupation by the respondent/landlord and his sons who were dependant family members. The bona fides of the need was disputed and the R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -2- tenant also contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. 2. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence adduced in the case consisted of Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1 to B12 series, PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 and Exts.C1 and C1(a) came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord as PW1 and the sons as PWs.2 and 3 was a bona fide one. It was also found that the tenant was not successful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/tenant. That R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -3- authority made a thorough re-appraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 3. In this revision filed under Section 20, various grounds assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court are raised. Smt.P.A.Anitha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds. She submitted that the findings of the authorities below that the need is bona fide, is contrary to the evidence on record. She also submitted that at any rate it should have been found that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of the second proviso. R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -4- 4. All the submissions of Smt.Anitha were resisted by Sri.K.G.Balasubramanian who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent as directed by us. 5. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. We notice from the judgment of the Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final authority on facts, that the findings entered therein that the need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one and that the tenant was not successful in proving that he satisfies the ingredients of the second proviso which are in the conjunctive are findings founded R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -5- on legal evidence which is available on record. We find that this is a case where evidence was given not only by the landlord but by both his sons in whose name the eviction was sought for. The trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and recording their testimonies was rightly impressed by those testimonies. We do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority which is given on the basis of reappraisal of the evidence. In short we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference under Section 20. The revision petition necessarily has to fail. 6. Smt.Anitha would make a last plea for grant of one year's time from today to surrender R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -6- the premises. This request is stiffly opposed by Sri.Balasubramanian. However, we feel that on the facts and circumstances attending on this case, there is justification for granting time till the end of this year i.e. 31/12/10 subject to certain conditions. 7. The result of the above discussion, therefore is as follows:- The RCR is dismissed confirming the order of eviction. The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/12/10 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court within three weeks from today undertaking to discharge arrears of R. C. R. No.112 of 2010 -7- rent if any due as on date within one month from today and undertaking further to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate as and when the same falls due till actual surrender is made. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted by this order only if the affidavit as directed above is filed on time. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-