IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 109 of 2011(B) ------------------------------- RCA.110/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.38/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT/RCC, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ C.K.SIRAJ , S/O.ABDUL SALAM HAJI MATTOOL AMSOM,DESOM GOLDEN PLAZA, O.V.ROAD, THALASSERI. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- CHOVVAKKARAN PUTHIYAPURAYIL SUHARA RAHIM D/O.MAMMU KEYI, AGED 53 YEARS, THALASSERI AMSOM VADIKKAKAM DESOM, P.O.THALASSERI.-673642 ADV. SRI.ANIL GEORGE FOR R SRI.K.S.SUMEESH FOR R THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.111/11 & CON. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenants occupying different rooms in a larger building belonging to the 1st respondent landlady challenge in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by the landlady in all the Rent Control Petitions which are rooms in the ground floor and first floor of a double storied building was that all these rooms are needed bona fide so that the landlady's daughter who is a Dentist and her husband who is also a Dentist with Post Graduate qualifications can conduct a Super Speciality Dental Clinic in the entire building. The bona fides of the need was disputed by the revision petitioners who contended that they are entitled to the protection of the RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -2- second proviso to sub section 3 of Section 11. Rent Control Court consolidated all the Rent Control Petitions and conducted a joint trial. The evidence at trial consisted of Exts.A1 to A8, PW1, Exts.B1 to B3(a), Rws.1 to 4 and Ext.C1 Commission Report. On evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide and also that the tenants were unsuccessful in proving that they are not entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under sub section 3 of section 11. The revision petitioners carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority made a re-appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence and under the impugned common judgment dismissed all the appeals. 2. In these revisions the revision petitioners contend that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -3- illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by section 20 and it is urged that the order of eviction be interfered with and the RCPs be dismissed. 3. Very persuasive submissions were addressed before us by Sri.K.V.Pavithran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Sri.Pavithran pointed out that in the year 2000 the respondent landlady had instituted Rent Control Petitions in respect of various portions of the entire two storied building urging the ground that a stationary business is to be conducted by the landlady along with her brother. The above RCP was not pursued. But one room in the first floor was surrendered by the tenant. That room is even now kept vacant by the landlady. According to Sri.Pavithran, when the landlady is in possession of a vacant room belonging to her she has the obligation to disclose the same to the Rent Control Court and to convince the Rent Control Court as to why the need projected by her in the Rent Control Petitions cannot be accomplished. According to the RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -4- learned counsel the circumstance warranted the landlady to plead and prove special reasons as to why in spite of the availability of one vacant room, the landlady wanted to evict the tenants. Sri.Pavithran also referred to the Commissioner's Report which showed that the total area of the rooms which were subject matter of these Rent Control Petitions was 156.30 sq. m. According to the learned counsel it was in evidence that the landlady's daughter and son-in- law were presently conducting a clinic in a much smaller premises at Chennai. That being the situation, the need presently projected to have the entire double storied building for the purpose of conducting their proposed clinic is only an exaggeration. The appreciation of evidence by the two authorities has been thoroughly irregular and this has resulted in denial of justice to the tenants. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Pavithran were resisted by Sri.Anil George. Sri.Anil George would read over to us the testimony of RW4 who is one of the tenants and submit that RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -5- it has been freely admitted by RW4 that the entire double storied building, parts of which are subject matter of these revisions will not be sufficient for accommodating the facilities which are presently available in the clinic conducted by the respondent's daughter and son-in-law at Madras. Sri.Anil also submitted that the landlady had disclosed in the Rent Control Petition itself that one room in the first floor is available under the landlady's vacant possession. But the cumulative effect of the pleadings in RCP will show that the need of the landlady was the commencement of clinic by her daughter and son-in-law in the entire building. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. We have also applied our mind to those aspects of evidence to which our attention was drawn by the counsel. We must immediately remind ourselves of the RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -6- attenuated nature of the jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. In the present jurisdiction, we are not expected to substitute the factual conclusions arrived at by the final fact finding authority the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority when such conclusions have been arrived at on the basis of evidence on record. On going through the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we find that the findings therein that the need is bona fide and that there are no statutory prohibitions for allowing the Rent Control Petitions are findings founded on evidence which inspired the two fact finding authorities the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority very much. We are not very much impressed by the submissions of Sri.Pavithran made in the context of sub section 3 of section 11. A reading of the pleadings will show that the clinic which the landlady's daughter and son-in-law proposes to conduct is a large scale one, to conduct which the entire building is necessary. The very fact that the landlady has kept the one RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -7- room in the first floor which was got vacant year's ago will demonstrate the bona fides of the landlady to provide the entire building to her daughter-in-law for the purpose of conducting the proposed clinic. Even though there has been some powerful cross examination of PW1, we are of the view that no serious dent could be made to the credibility of PW1 through the cross examination. RW4 C.K.Siraj is one of the tenants. His evidence in our opinion answers the argument of Sri.Pavithran that the entire building is not necessary for accomplishing the need of conducting clinic. Findings entered by the statutory authorities are founded on evidence and as reasonable findings have been entered based on evidence, we will not be justified in interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority within the limits of our jurisdiction under section 20. RCRs necessarily has to fail and accordingly will stand dismissed confirming the order of eviction. 6. After we made our decision known, Sri.Pavithran, the RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -8- learned counsel for the revision petitioners requested for grant of two years' time to surrender the premises. This request is opposed very stiffly by the Sri.Anil George, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. Notwithstanding the opposition, we feel that having regard to the totality of the circumstances attending on these cases that there is justification for granting one year's time from today i.e. till 15/10/12 to all the revision petitioners for surrender of the buildings in their respective possession subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the result of the above discussion is as follows:- 7. All the RCRs are dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed under section 11(3). The execution court is directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 15/10/12 subject to the following conditions:- The revision petitioners will file affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the execution court as the case may be undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the buildings in RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -9- their possession on or before 15/10/12 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears of rent if any which has fallen due in respect of the buildings possessed by them within a period of one month. Through the affidavits the revision petitioner in RCR No.366/11 shall also undertake that with effect from 01/11/11 he shall pay occupational charges at the rate of ` 900/- per mensem till date of actual surrender. Similarly the revision petitioner in RCR.109/11 shall undertake that he will pay occupational charges at the rate of ` 1,500/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR.111/11 will undertake through the affidavit to pay occupational charges with effect from 01/11/11 at the rate of ` 1,500/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR.112/11 will undertake through the affidavit to pay occupational charges at the rate of ` 1,350/- per mensem with effect from 01/11/11. The revision petitioner in RCR.349/11 will undertake through the affidavit to pay occupational charges with effect from 01/11/11 at the rate of ` 900/- per mensem. RCR Nos.109, 111, 112, 349 & 366 of 2011 -10- We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time as allowed above only if they file the affidavits and honour the undertakings contained therein without fail. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-