IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 172 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.108/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.166/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ SHIRISH.D.LILLADHAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.DWARAKADAS LILLADHAR, TARPAULIN HOUSE, OPP.SARITHA THEATER, C.C.41/4080, POOVATHINGAL BUILDING, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.DIVYA C.MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ TOGO KURIEN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEORGE KURIEN POOVATHINGAL, B-6, ABC VIJAYALAYA, 12/252, VASANTHA STREET, GOLDEN GEORGE NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL FOR R1 SRI.MICHAEL M.WILSON FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 172 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December , 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. The building in question is a residential building which is presently being put to commercial use by the revision petitioner. The need projected by the respondent/landlord was that the building is needed for his residential purpose. The bona fides of the need projected was disputed by the tenant who also contended that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. It was also contended that the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of the 1st proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on the side of the landlord who got himself examined as PW1. The evidence on the side of the revision petitioner tenant consisted of his own oral evidence RCR.No.172/2009 2 as RW1 and documents Exts. B1 and B2. The learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlord was a bona fide one. It was also found that the landlord was not in possession of any other building of the landlord's own so as to entail rejection of the RCP by virtue of first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. In the context of the second proviso to sub section (3), it was found that the tenant was not successful in proving that he satisfies either of the ingredients of that proviso. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under sub section (3) of Section 11. 2. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. 3. Sri.S.P.Chaly, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed us strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Chaly were resisted by Sri.Thomas Michael, learned counsel for the RCR.No.172/2009 3 respondent/landlord. We have considered the rival submissions. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The jurisdiction of this court under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is a revisional in nature. This court is not ordinarily expected to interfere with the findings on facts entered by the statutory facts finding authorities viz. the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority especially when they are founded on evidence. It is seen that the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, by which the order of the Rent Control Court was confirmed, contain findings in favour of the landlord which are founded on evidence actually available on record. Under the above circumstances, it is not possible to say that the impugned judgment and the order are vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. The revision necessary has to fail. 5. As his last plea, Sri.Chaly requests that one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender the premises. The above request is stiffly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, we feel that having regard to the RCR.No.172/2009 4 circumstances which attend on this case there is justification for granting time to the revision petitioner till 31/5/2010 to surrender the premises subject to certain conditions. 6. The result is therefore as follows; i). The RCR is dismissed. ii). The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/5/2010 subject to the following conditions; The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court on or before 23rd instant undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building on or before 31/5/2010. It will also be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be discharged within one month and occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be paid till the date of surrender without fail. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will be RCR.No.172/2009 5 entitled for the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk