IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 243 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.28/2007 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.36/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ SREEKAR P.SHENOY S/O.PADMANABHA SHENOY, RESIDING IN C.C.NO.8/1344 PALLIYARAKKAVU ROAD, OPP. KRISHNAKUNJU,COCHIN-2 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- SARVANANDA SHENOY, S/O. HARI SHENOY RESIDING AT C.C. NO. 8/589 A, TOWN HALL ROAD KOCHI-2 ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.243/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The rent control court and the appellate authority have concurrently passed order of eviction against him under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act,1965. (Act 2 of 1965). In fact the respondent landlord had invoked grounds under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(8) also. The application under Section 11(8) was found to be not maintainable. The application under Section 11(2)(b) was not granted due to the reason that arrears of rent alleged had been discharged. The tenant had claimed protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). As regards the same, it was found concurrently by the courts below that the tenant, upon whom was the burden to establish that he satisfies both the ingredients of that proviso, failed in establishing that he satisfied that ingredients. As regards the two ingredients of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3), findings came in favour of the tenants. R.C.R..No.243/2008 2 However, it was found by both the courts that the tenant has not established that he satisfies the 1st ingredient and accordingly it was found that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3). 2. In this revision petition the tenant impugns the findings of the authorities below regarding the bona fide need of the claimant and also regarding the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso of Section 11(3). I.A. No.200/2009 has been filed by the petitioner requesting that a subsequent event narrated in the affidavit in support of the I.A. be considered by this court while deciding the revision. After hearing both sides, we have allowed that I.A. It is noticed that the landlord of the building, which is presently occupied by the tenant, has parted with ownership of that building in favour of one Sri.Naveenkumar Pai. At the same time, though we have noticed the above subsequent event, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the revision petitioner that the above subsequent event will have the effect of demolishing the findings concurrently entered by the court below regarding the bona fides of the need of the claim projected in the rent control petition. That subsequent events at R.C.R..No.243/2008 3 best can have some relevance while we considering the duration of time to be granted to the revision petitioner for vacating the premises in the event of our confirming the eviction order. 3. We have heard Sri.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and also those of Sri.E.Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.S.B.Premachandra Prabhu would assail all the findings of the rent control court regarding the bona fides of the landlord's need and claim and regarding the tenant's liability for protection of the second proviso of Section 11(3). He submitted that the need projected was that the landlord is in occupation of a building belonged to another person and the landlord's landlord is compelling the landlord to surrender that building. Sri.Premachandra Prabhu further submitted that so called landlord of the landlord was none other than the landlord's own brother. It was submitted that the very battle between the landlord and his landlord was just a make believe for projecting to the present claim. Though the submissions of Sri.Premachandra Prabhu were attractive, we are unable to accept them in view of the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. In this jurisdiction we do not sit in appeal R.C.R..No.243/2008 4 over the findings entered by the appellate authority. We do not appraise the evidence ordinarily. If at all we re-appreciate the evidence, it is only for the limited purpose of considering whether the findings entered by the courts below are irregular, illegal and improper. In other words, the revisional authority under section 20 is expected only to make a birds' eye view of the evidence for the limited purpose of deciding whether the orders passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority are illegal , irregular and improper. 4. Having gone through the impugned orders, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is warrant for interference under Section 20. Findings entered by the courts below are founded on evidence. Those findings are reasonable. Bona fide need does not mean anything more than reasonable requirement. 5. Challenge against the impugned orders is liable to fail. At the same time, we find that the landlord is presently doing business in a building which belonged at the time of commencement of the rent control proceedings to the landlord's brother. That building is now sold by the landlord to R.C.R..No.243/2008 5 Sri.Naveenkumar Pai. Sri.Naveenkumar Pai has on 21/8/2008 demanded the landlord to surrender that building to him on the ground of his bona fide need to do his own business. In terms of the third proviso to Section 11(3), Sri.Naveen Kumar Pai will be able to initiate proceedings for evicting the respondent only on expiry of one year from the date of sale deed No.1026/2008. 6. We take notice of that circumstance and are inclined to grant time till 31/12/2009 subject to certain conditions. i). The revision petitioner is directed to file an application before the execution court or the rent control court wherein he undertakes that he will peacefully surrender possession of the petition schedule room to the respondent on or before 31/12/2009. ii). The revision petitioner will also discharge arrears of the rent, if any, and will continue to pay the rent which falls due subsequently to the respondent without fail. R.C.R..No.243/2008 6 Iii). Affidavit as directed above will be filed by the revision petitioner within three weeks from today. If such an affidavit is noticed by the execution court or the rent control court, as the case may be, the court as well as the respondent will be bound to permit the revision petitioner to continue in possession of the premises till 31/12/2009. If no affidavit is filed as directed above, the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted by this court. The revision petition is dismissed subject to the above directions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk