IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 167 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.9/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, N. PARAVUR RCP.1/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O KUNJI CHERIYA, CHIYEDATH HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY MURI, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE. 2. JOSE VARGHESE, S/O VARGHESE, CHIYEDATH HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY MURI, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM, S/O OUSEPH, AGED 79, PATHIKULANGAR, PARAVOOTHARA MURI, N. PARAVUR. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-2-2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. 1603/08 & 615/09 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. 14-02-2011 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADAS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 167 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioners on the ground under sub-section (3) of Section 11. The respondent landlord is a fairly old man aged 73 when he filed the RCP. The need projected by him was to conduct paper business in the petition schedule building. According to the landlord his elder brother was doing the same business and hence he also wants to do the same business so that he can eke out/augument income for his living. The bonafides of the need was disputed. It was pointed out that the landlord had some 20 years earlier filed Ext.B1 RCP projecting the very same need and that RCP was dismissed and the order dismissing that RCP had become RCR. 167/2008 -2- final. Accordingly it was contended that Section 15 of Act 2 of 1965 bars the present RCP. The further contention raised was that it was not at all natural for an old man aged 73 to think in terms of starting a business especially as he was otherwise well placed in life. The tenant had also claimed the protection of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11. 2. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts. A1 to A3, B1 and B2, oral evidence of the landlord as PW-1 and that of the tenant as RW-1. On evaluating the evidence the Rent Control Court would find that the need is bona fide. It was further found that the RCP was not liable to fail by virtue of the proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 11. It was also found that the tenant was unsuccessful in showing that he satisfies either of the two ingredients of the second proviso. Accordingly order of eviction was passed under Section 11(3). The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has after making a RCR. 167/2008 -3- reappraisal of the evidence concurred with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. It is seriously urged that the statutory authorities ought to have rejected the present RCP as barred in view of Section 15. It is also urged that the need projected by the old man aged 73 to start business cannot be a natural and bona fide one. It is also urged that the authorities below went wrong in declining the tenant the benefit of second proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not present. However, as our present jurisdiction is revisional in nature, we have examined the records of the case and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. On scanning the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court it is seen that all the findings entered therein regarding the bonafides of the need and also RCR. 167/2008 -4- regarding the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 are findings founded on evidence. When reasonable findings are entered by the statutory authorities under Act 2 of 1965 and that too concurrently, this court in revision is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting the factual conclusions by fresh conclusions. True, the petitioner in the RCP was aged 73. But he himself mounted the witness box and manifested the need which he had conceived in his mind. We were taken through his cross examination. We find that it was not even suggested to him that due to oldage or any other physical or mental infirmity PW-1 will not be able to conduct business. When the oral evidence given by PW-1 regarding the bonafides of his need inspired the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority, the two fact finding authorities under Act 2 of 1965, we will not be justified in taking a different view. 4. It is seen that it is the bar under Section 15 of Act 2 RCR. 167/2008 -5- of 1965, which was highlighted before the court below. In the revision memorandum also it is above bar which is urged more prominently. It is trite by decisions of this Court that it is open to a landlord to file a rent control petition invoking the ground under section 11(3) even after an earlier petition filed by him invoking the same ground is dismissed, provided there has been change in circumstance. It should be noticed that it is about 20 years after the filing of the earlier RCP that the present RCP is filed. The authorities below have found that the circumstances attending on the landlord have changed. At the time of filing of the earlier RCP, the landlord was doing contract works for the Government. Presently the evidence would show that he has no work or avocation for life. The same itself is a major change in the circumstance attending on the landlord. In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 in the concurrent eviction order passed by the Rent Control RCR. 167/2008 -6- Court and the Appellate Authority. The revision will necessarily have to fail and will stand dismissed. However, by way of indulgence we grant to the revision petitioner time till 30-8-2011 to surrender the premises subject to the following conditions: The revision petitioner files an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building on or before 30-8-2011 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate without fail till he gives actual surrender of the building. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) ksv/-