IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 122 of 2004(E) ------------------------- RCA.69/2002 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.83/2000 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS RESPODNENTS 1,4,5,7 & 8 -------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN @ CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHI- RAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, BUSINESS, VATAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, VADAKRA MSOM, DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (DIED) 2. VIJAYAKUMAR ALIAS VIJAYAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 41 YEARS, BUSINESS, VATAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, -DO- -DO.-. 3. THULASIDASAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,38 YEARS, BUSINESS -DO- -DO- . 4. PREMAKUMAR ALIAS PREMAN, 29 YEARS, BUSINESS, -DO- -DO-. 5. MURALIDHARAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 27 YEARS, BUSINESS, KANDIYIL HOUSE -DO- -DO-. ADDL. REVISION PETITIONERS 6. PREETHA N. W/O LATE V.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, CHANDRODAYAM, KUTTOTH, KEEZHAL P.O. VADAKARA. 7. HONEYMA V.K. D/O LATE V.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN -DO- 8. PRIYANKA V.K. DO. DO. 9. ARJUN V.K. S/O LATE V.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, DO. ADDL. REVISION PETITIONERS 6 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A. NO. 179/08 DATED 16-10-09. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 / PETITIONERS 1 & 2 --------------- 1. METHALE PERYATTATH PREMANDAN, S/O.KUNHIKANAN AGED 48 YERS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA HOUSE, POST, CHORODE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRIFT. 2. PRASISHA NANAD, D/O.PREMANANDAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESSSIDING AT DO. HOUSE -DO- -DO-. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 122 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners and impugned in this revision under section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order or eviction passed against them on the ground under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11. The landlord had invoked the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation also in the rent control petition, but those grounds no longer survive for consideration. The case of the landlord in the context of the ground under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 was that the tenants are having possession of buildings having door Nos. 34/776 and 34/759 which are reasonably sufficient for their requirement in the same city, town or village. The revision petitioner tenants disputed the above RCR. No. 122/04 - 2 - ground and contended that one of the rooms pointed out by the landlord to be held by the tenants and reasonably sufficient for their requirements is a room held by the first respondent in the RCP, one of the legal heirs of the original tenant in his own right. The allegation that the tenants possessed other buildings was also disputed. The Rent Control Court evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties which consisted of documents A1 to A10, B1 to B4, X1 to X5 and oral testimonies of witnesses PWs. 1 to 4 and RW1 and came to the conclusion that it was conceded by the revision petitioner tenants that they are possessed of rooms having door Nos. 20/242 and 20/348 and their explanation was that those rooms are not suitable for the business carried on by them. The court also noticed that to certain suggestive questions during cross examination of RW1 the only witness examined on behalf of the tenants admitted that if a commission had been taken out for inspecting the petition RCR. No. 122/04 - 3 - schedule rooms as well as the room admittedly in the possession of the tenants, the correctness of the above explanation could have been brought to light. The Rent Control Court relied on the judgment of this court in K.C.M.S. Society Ltd. v. Ganapathi Kamath, 1995(1) KLT 681 and held that since it was admitted that the tenant was in possession of other buildings, the burden was on the tenant to establish that the building admittedly possessed by him was not sufficient for his requirements. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11. The Appellate Authority made a re- appraisal of the evidence and concurred with the findings of the rent control court in the context of the ground under clause (iii) of subsection (4) of Section 11 and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under that ground. It is the above judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which is under challenge in this revision RCR. No. 122/04 - 4 - petition. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, senior counsel for the revision respondent landlord. Mr.Krishnan argued that the present revision petitioners were not the original tenants. The original tenant was their father one Kunhiraman. Upon demise of Sri.Kunhiraman, the original revision petitioners became tenants as the legal heirs of Sri.Kunhiraman. The tenancy that devolved upon them is a joint tenancy. The evidence in this case is to the effect that room having door No. 4/145 is held by the first revision petitioner in his individual capacity and that the other room is also held not on joint tenancy by all the revision petitioners. In as much as the tenancy in respect of the building which is subject matter of the RCP is a joint tenancy in order that the revision petitioners become liable to be evicted on the RCR. No. 122/04 - 5 - ground of Clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11, the additional building possessed by them also should be held on joint tenancy. 3. The submissions of Mr.Krishnan were resisted by Sri.Balakrishna Iyer who submitted that the legislative objective underlying the ground under clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 11 should not be lost sight of. The learned senior counsel submitted that there is no infirmity about the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming decision of the Rent Control Court to order eviction on the ground under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 4. We have considered the rival submissions very anxiously. The legislative objective underlying clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 is that during these times of acute accommodation shortage even the tenant should not RCR. No. 122/04 - 6 - be allowed the luxury of having more buildings than what is necessary for their requirements, that too in the same city, town or village. The arguments of Mr.B.Krishnan that if it is shown that the building which is subject matter of the rent control petition is held on joint tenancy by the legal heirs of the original tenant, the additional building held by them should also be held by them on joint tenancy in order that the entire liability for order of eviction under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 is too technical to receive acceptance. As for the facts of this case, though it is true that one of the three buildings evidently under the possession of the revision petitioners was taken on lease by the first revision petitioner in his own right, the evidence regarding the other buildings is that they were held by Sri.Kunhiraman, the original tenant during his life time itself. If that be so, it is not difficult to find that the revision petitioners are joint tenants in respect of those two other RCR. No. 122/04 - 7 - rooms. At any rate, we do not find any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety tainting the finding concurrently entered by the authorities below that the revision petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of having in their possession other buildings reasonably sufficient for their requirements. RCR is dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ksv/-