IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 22 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.3/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PARAVUR RCP.2/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER (S): -------------------- JOSE T.G. S/O. SRI.GHEEVARGHESE, BETHEL HOUSE, KUZHIKAD KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN SRI.SANTHOSH MODAYIL RESPONDENT(S)/APELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------- 1. SREEDHARAN NAIR, S/O. SRI..KESAVAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPAKUDATH HOUSE, KUZHIKAD KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE. 6823030 2. K.CHANDRAN, S/O. KOCHAMMINI, HARISREE NIVAS, IRUMPANAM KARA, THIRUVANKULM VILLAGE. PIN 682309. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 22 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges in this revision the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the rent control petition to the rent control court for fresh decision on the question as to whether the need projected by the landlord is bonafide. The respondents/landlords sought to evict the petitioner/tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. The Rent Control Court after enquiry, declined the order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent as the landlords did not press that ground. The eviction order was passed under Section 11(3) accepting the oral evidence which was adduced by the son-in-law of the first respondent who was said to be managing the affairs of the respondents. 2. The learned Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment has practically upheld the contention of the revision RCR.No.22/2011 2 petitioner that the bona fides of the need cannot be manifested by the son-in-law and more responsible evidence will have to be adduced by the landlords for establishing the bona fides of the need. It is accordingly that the finding that the need is bona fide is set aside and the rent control petition is remanded. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the rent control court that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Sri.James Kurian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner fervently urged that the scope of the remand order be enhanced and the rent control court be directed to reconsider the question whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. We are not inclined to accept the request of Mr.James Kurian. 4. Having gone through the order of the rent control court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find that the finding concurrently entered by those two authorities that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 is a finding founded on evidence RCR.No.22/2011 3 available on record. The argument of Mr.James Kurian was that the finding in the context of the second limb of the second proviso (availability of other buildings in the locality) is based on availability of two rooms about 150 meters away from the petition schedule building. According to the learned counsel, since the area in question is a village area, the area within the radius of 150 meters will be outside the concept of locality. We cannot agree. 5. Having regard to the judicial precedents governing the issue including the judgment of the Full Bench in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar (2003 (2) KLT 230 ( FB), there is no infirmity about the finding that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11. We confirm the above finding. Mr.James Kurian would then submit that it is in evidence that in the larger building, a part of which forms part of the petition schedule building, there are two rooms belonging to the landlords under the landlords' vacant possession. This aspect has not been considered by the Rent Control Court, learned counsel complains. On going through the pleadings, we find that no specific contention based on the first RCR.No.22/2011 4 proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 has been taken by the revision petitioner. Hence it may not possible for the revision petitioner to canvass rejection of the rent control petition based on the first proviso to section 11 (3). However, if as a matter of fact, two rooms are readily available with the landlords for accomplishing the need proposed in the rent control petition, the same may have a bearing on the bona fides of the claim. The question of bona fides of the claim has been directed to be reconsidered by the rent control court. It is open to the revision petitioner to highlight the above aspect of the matter as a circumstance indicating absence of bona fides. With the above observations, we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the rent control revision. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk