IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 338 of 2010(C) ------------------------ RCA.37/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.83/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- S.SURYA KUMARI, MANGALYA, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- NARAYANA PRABHU VAMANA PRABHU, CNU BUILDINGS, PALLURUTHI P.O., KOCHI-682 005. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS PALTHURUTHI IN RCA JUDGMENT). ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.16 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.Nos.338 of 2010 and 16 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The landlady is a revision petitioner in both these revisions. Her claim for own occupation under sub-section 3 of Section 11 has been concurrently turned down by the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority. As the facts have been narrated almost correctly by the statutory authorities we do not propose to narrate the facts over again. Sri. G.S. Raghunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner landlady and Sri. S.R.D. Prabhu, learned counsel for the tenants in the two cases addressed us at length. In support of their rival submissions we have considered the submissions addressed at the bar and we have also scanned the judgment of the appellate authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. What we find is that the statutory authorities turned down claims for eviction under Section 11(3) mainly on the reason that the first proviso to Section 11(3) operates in this case against the landlady. Though we are sitting in revision, we made a quick survey of the RCR.338/10 & 16/11 -2- evidence for appreciating the submissions addressed. It appears to us that the question whether the Rent Control Petition is liable to be rejected by virtue of first proviso- that is, whether the buildings which were available under the ownership and vacant possession of the landlady not being utilised by the landlady for accomplishing the need projected by her in the Rent Control Petition requires to be considered afresh on the basis of further evidence adduced by the parties. We are therefore inclined to afford opportunity to the landlady to adduce further evidence. If she adduces further evidence, it will be open to the respondents also to adduce further evidence. 2. Result of the above discussion is as follows: Judgment of the appellate authority and order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction under Section 11(3) are set aside. The Rent Control Petitions are remanded to the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram for fresh decision. The landlady will be allowed to adduce evidence to substantiate that the first proviso to Section 11(3) does not apply in these cases. If necessary, the landlady will be permitted to take out fresh commission. So also the tenants will be permitted to adduce counter evidence to the further evidence adduced by the RCR.338/10 & 16/11 -3- landlady and also to adduce additional evidence (of any form)to substantiate the contentions that they are entitled to second proviso to Section 11(3). The Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite the matter and to pass revised orders in both the Rent Control Petitions at the earliest. Parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court on 22.10.2011. Transmit the LCR back to the Rent Control Court immediately. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb