IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 217 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.38/2006 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCP.12/2005 of ADDL.RENT CONTROL COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THAJUDEEN KOYA THANGAL, S/O.IBRAHIM KOYA THANGAL, AGED 54 YEARS, TAJ MAHAL, KAIRALI NAGAR, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KAMARUNEEZA, W/O.BABU, AGED 53 YEARS, ANUPAMA, VALIAKADA, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE- 691 013. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ ........................................... RCR.NO. 217 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 ORDER PIUS.C.Kuriakose, J The Tenant is the petitioner in this revision. He challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the statutory authorities under the Kerala Buildings and (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short, `the Act'), on the grounds of the bonafide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant's acquisition of another building is reasonably sufficient for his requirements in the same City, Town or Village under Section 11(4)(3). In fact, the Landlord invoked the grounds under Section 11(4)(2) and 11(4)(5) also for evicting the tenant. But as we are informed that the order declining eviction on the grounds under Section 11(4)(2) and 11(4)(5) have become final, we in this revision need be concerned only with the correctness of the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the grounds under Section 11(3) and Section 11(4)(3). RCR No.217/2010 2 2. The need projected by the landlady in the context of the grounds under sub section 3 of Section 11 was that she needs the building for accommodating her dependant son for the purpose of conducting business in jewellery. The tenant disputed the bonafides of the need and also contended that he is eligible for the protection of second proviso to Section 11(3). The landlady's allegation in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(3) was that the tenant had acquired possession of another building made mention of in Ext.X1 and Ext.X2 registers of the Corporation and that the said building was reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirements in the Town. The tenant's defence was that though he was having possession of the said building, he has surrendered possession of that building to the owner of that building and he no longer possess that building. 3. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial, the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A12, B1 and B1(a), X1 and X2, PWs 1 to 4 and CPWs 1 and 2. The landlady was examined as PW1 and her dependant son was examined as PW4. PW3 was the official of the Corporation who was cited to prove Exts.X1 and X2 registration. The Rent Control Court, on appraising the evidence, came to the RCR No.217/2010 3 conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was a bonafide one. It was also concluded that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of second proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 11. Coming to the grounds under Section 11(4)(3), it was found by the Rent Control Court that the action of the tenant in surrendering a building which he had come to be in possession will not enable the tenant to get over the liability for eviction on the ground under Section 11(4)(3). Accordingly, Rent Control Court ordered eviction both under Section 11(3) and under Section 11(4)(3). The tenant preferred appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by the impugned judgment, made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and concurred with all the findings of Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) and under Section 11(4)(3). 4. In this revision under Section 20, the tenant has raised various grounds challenging the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. Sri Satheesh Kumar submitted that there is absolutely no bonafides in the RCR No.217/2010 4 need which is projected by the landlady. The landlady's sister Jameela Beevi was previously the wife of the revision petitioner but they fell apart and revision petitioner became constrained to divorce Smt. Jameela Beevi . The present petition for eviction is the result of the estrangement between the parties on account of such divorce. The counsel submitted that the circumstance of Smt.Jameela Beevi herself coming forward to depose against the revision petitioner is indicative of the malafides with which the claim is tainted. 5. Sri Satheesh Kumar would then submit on the basis of Letter No.BB1/RTI/Olai/2010-2011 issued by the Electrical Section Office, Olai, Kollam to the revision petitioner answering five questions submitted to the Public Information Officer of Section Office, KSEB, Olai, that Room No.M.C.322 which is the room adjacent to the petition schedule building, fell vacant during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal and the landlady let out that building to one A.J.Naveen. According to Sri Satheesh Kumar, the event of the landlady letting out the said room No.322 to A.J.Naveen is a subsequent event which has got a fundamental impact on the order of eviction presently passed in favour of the landlady. Coming to ground under Section 11(4)(3), Sri RCR No.217/2010 5 Satheesh Kumar argued that it became evident in the case that at the time of adjudication of the Rent Control Petition, the tenant did not have any building other than the petition schedule building in his possession. 6. We have anxiously considered the submissions of Sri Satheesh Kumar. We have gone through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the scheme of the Rent Control Statute is the final court on facts. In the present revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, this court is not expected ordinarily to reappreciate the evidence for substituting factual conclusions arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate Authority especially when such conclusions are seen founded on evidence. It will be immediately stated that on going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the findings entered therein are reasonable findings which are founded on convincing evidence actually on record in that case. The question that arises now is whether the subsequent event of landlady letting out room No.322 to A.J.Naveen will eclipse landlady's need under Section 11(3) which has been recognized by the statutory authorities. We have no difficulty in answering that question in the RCR No.217/2010 6 negative. The need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition and pursued by her in evidence was that the petition schedule building where the revision petitioner is presently conducting jewellery is needed so that her dependant son can conduct business in jewellery. May be the landlady thought that the petition schedule building in which the tenant has been successfully conducting jewellery business for quite sometime is ideal for conducting the same line of business by her son. At any rate, the need projected was a need in respect of the petition schedule building. This need having been found to be a genuine one by the two statutory authorities, on appreciation and reappreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, will not stand eclipsed by the subsequent event of the adjacent room falling vacant and the landlady letting out the same to another tenant. The position perhaps could have been different if the landlady's need was that her son could be accommodated in the entire building consisting of the adjacent room also. That not being the situation here, we are of the view that the subsequent event highlighted before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot have any impact on the right of the landlady to evict the tenant. RCR No.217/2010 7 7. The argument of Sri Satheesh Kumar regarding the ground under Section 11(4)(3) also cannot receive acceptance. The tenant do not have a case that the building which he had come into possession as evident from Exts.X1 and X2 was not reasonably sufficient for his requirement. On the contrary, the tenant's case was that he had surrendered that building to the landlady of that building and is no longer in possession. The statutory provisions under Section 11(4)(3) being what it is, we are of the view that the tenant's action in surrendering the building covered by Exts.X1 and X2 will not enable him to escape the liability from eviction under Section 11(4)(3). 8. As already noticed by us, the findings of the learned Rent Control Court and the appellate authority including the findings that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under second proviso are reasonable findings founded on evidence. At any rate, to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any justification. The revision will fail and stands dismissed. However, considering the last plea of of Sri Satheesh Kumar that some time be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises, we are inclined to grant time till 31.1.2011 to the revision petitioner for surrendering the RCR No.217/2010 8 premises subject to the following conditions. The revision petitioner files an affidavit before the Execution Court or Rent Control Court as the case may be within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building to the respondent on or before 31.1.2011 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent if any within one month from today and to pay occupational charges at ground rent as and when it falls due till actual surrender of the building is given. We make it clear that unless the affidavit is filed within the time stipulated above, the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time as above. PIUS C KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk