IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 427 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.107/2009 RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHOIRTY , KOZHIKODE-III RCP.9/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT ,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RABIA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.V.KUNHAMMED. 2. G.C.FAHAD, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O..LATE K.V.KUNHAMMED. 3. G.V.SHAHID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.V.KUNHAMMED, (ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANAPATHY VATTATH, KAYAKODI AMSOM, DEVARKOVIL DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. C.SEETHI, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KADER, 5/976A, CHERAYAKADU HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673001. 2. SMT.SUHARA, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.C.SEETHI, 5/976 A, CHERAYAKADU HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673001. 3. SMT.MARIYAM, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.SEETHI, PLOT NO.11, HOUSING COLONY, CHEROOTTY NAGAR, PUTHIYARA P.O., KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673004. 4. SMT.SALIKATH, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.SEETHI, 5/976A, CHERAYAKADU HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673001. 5. SMT.C.KHAMARUNNISA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.SEETHI, 5/976A, CHERAYAKADU HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673001. 6. C.HASHIM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SEETHI, 5/976A, CHERAYAKADU HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN 673001. ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1,6 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1,6 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 427 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners and they challenge the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court on the grounds under sub section (3) of Section 11- the bona fide need for own occupation and the ground under clause (v) of sub section (4) of Section 11- cessation of occupation without reasonable cause. 2. The pleadings have been almost accurately narrated not only by the Rent Control Court but also by the Appellate Authority and we therefore do not propose to narrate them over again. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4, RWs 1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A15 series, Ext.B1(a) and B1(b) apart from the commission report RCR.No.427/2011 2 EXt.C1 and C2 plan. On evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landladies under sub section (3) of Section 11 was a bona fide one and also that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of any of the provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. So also , it was found mainly on the basis of the commission report that the ground under Section 11 (4)(v) was also established. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on both the grounds. 3. The revision petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority made a reappraisal of the evidence and would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed us on the basis of all the grounds raised. It was argued that the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by Section 20 of Act RCR.No.427/2011 3 2 of 1965. Lastly, it was submitted that the eviction order should have been made conditional upon the respondents/landladies repaying the substantial amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs, which the revision petitioners had entrusted with the respondents/landladies at the time of taking the building on lease as security, to the revision petitioners. 5. We have considered all the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We remind ourselves of the attenuated nature of our present jurisdiction under Section 20. In this revision this court is not expected to make a reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting the findings of fact entered by the Appellate Authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. In this particular case, we find that the findings of fact have been entered concurrently by the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we are convinced that the findings entered therein in the context of both the eviction grounds invoked are founded on legal evidence RCR.No.427/2011 4 which is available on record. When reasonable findings are entered by the fact finding authorities on the basis of evidence available on record, this court is not expected to interfere with the same. We do not find any warrant for interference. We shall now consider the learned counsel's request that the eviction order should made conditional upon the advance amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs being refunded. When we enquired of the learned counsel as to whether there is any document which will show that so much amount was entrusted by the petitioners to the respondents at the time when they took up the building on lease, the answer was in the negative. Nevertheless we feel that even as we confirm the eviction order and dismiss the revision petition, a direction can be given to the Execution Court for exploring the possibility of a settlement of the dispute concerning the advance amount allegedly paid by the revision petitioners. 6. The result of the above discussion is therefore as follows; i). The revision fails and the same will stand dismissed. ii). The Execution court is directed that before ordering delivery, the court will summon the first revision petitioner and RCR.No.427/2011 5 the first respondent to the court hall and explore the possibilities of a settlement of the issue between the parties as to the advance amounts of Rs. 8 Lakhs which the petitioners claim to have been paid by their predecessor in interest to the first respondent. Only when the Execution Court feels that a settlement is out of question, the Execution Court will order delivery relegating the parties to seek resolution of the above dispute through the process of a competent civil court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk