IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 97 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.11/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR RCP.15/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- P.D.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.DAS, PALLATH HOUSE, PARAYAKAD, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALARIPARAMBIL, KIZHAKKEPRAM MURI, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RCR. No. 97 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R Abdul Rehim, J. The tenant in a rent control petition on the files of the Rent Control Court, North Parur is in revision aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by that Court under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, (the Act for short), which is confirmed in appeal. 2. The allegations in the petition is that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable cause and that he was not conducting any business therein for the past more than six months. The rent control petition was resisted mainly on the ground that it is hit by principles of 'res judicata', since an earlier petition, RCP. 25 of 2004, which was filed inter alia under the same ground was dismissed. It was contended that the tenant is doing business in the schedule RCR. 97 of 2010 - 2 - room and that he is depending on the income derived from the business activities for livelihood. 3. Evidence before the trial court consisted of oral testimony of PW-1 to 4 on the side of the landlord and Exts.A1 and A2 marked on behalf of him. The tenant was examined as RW-1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on his behalf. C-1 report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as X-1 certified extract of the Meter readings of electricity in the schedule building were also marked in evidence. Initially the Rent Control Petition was disposed of by an order dt. 21-6-2007. But in appeal RCA. 2/07 that order was set aside and the matter was remanded with a direction to pass fresh orders based on the contentions of the parties and evidence adduced, as to whether the landlord is entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v). 4. After the remand on an elaborate consideration of evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that filing of the earlier rent control petition will not run as 'res RCR. 97 of 2010 - 3 - judicata' since cessation of occupation pleaded in the present petition is a fresh cause of action. From the evidence adduced, especially considering the report of Advocate Commissioner, on the factual matrix of the case, the Rent Control Court found that the tenant had ceased to occupy the building for the last so many months. It is also proved through other evidence like Ext. X-1 that there was no signs of any business being conducted in the tenanted premises within a period of six months prior to filing of the rent control petition. 5. The matter was taken up again in appeal in RCA. 11 of 2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Parur. On a total reappraisal of the entire evidence the Appellate Authority concurred with the factual findings of the Rent Control Court and upheld the order of eviction. 6. On a scanning of the impugned order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we find no infirmity or error warranting RCR. 97 of 2010 - 4 - interference. In the attenuated jurisdiction conferred on us under section 20 of the Act, we find no merit to interfere since there is no material illegality, irregularity or impropriety with respect to findings arrived by the courts below. The Appellate Authority, being the final fact finding authority, had arrived at a conclusion on the basis of appreciation of evidence that there is factual cessation of occupation of the tenanted building for a period of more than six months. The Revision Petitioner could not point out any material omission or misappreciation of the evidence on record warranting interference with such factual findings. Hence we are of the opinion that the rent control revision deserves no merit and is liable to be dismissed. We dismiss the revision petition accordingly. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-