IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 177 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.51/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THRISSUR RCP.33/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/AP[PELLANT/RESPONDENT (S): -------------------- MOHANAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. KALAPURACKAL APPUTTY, THIRUNELLOOR DESOM, MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- SANKARAN, S/O. VENMENANGATTU KUNJAPPU, CHANGALAYI DESOM MULLASSERY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 177 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need, which was projected in the RCP and found by the authorities, was the need of the landlord to accommodate his dependent daughter in law for conducting business in the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need was disputed. The tenant also claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and at enquiry the landlord got himself examined as PW1 and the de facto claimant daughter in law was examined as PW2. As against that, the tenant got himself examined as RW1. Documentary evidence consisted of Ext.A1 to A5, B1 to B7. The oral evidence adduced by PW1 was not shaken despite severe cross examination. That evidence inspired the Rent Control Court and that Court held RCR.No.177/2010 2 that the need was a bona fide one. It came out in evidence that the wife of the tenant was conducting business elsewhere. Thus it became evident that the tenant had yet another source of income to depend on for livelihood. In the absence of convincing evidence to the effect that income from the business carried on in the schedule building is the main source of income, the Rent Control Court found that the first limb of the second proviso is not satisfied in the case. Since both the limbs are in the conjunctive, the Court found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso. 2. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. 3. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.Rajit, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of those grounds. We have considered all the submissions of Sri.Rajit. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent control Court which was confirmed RCR.No.177/2010 3 by the Appellate Authority. We are of the considered view that within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, which is revisional in nature, where enquiry is only as to whether the judgment of the final fact finding Authority is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, there is no warrant for interference. We find that reasonable findings on fact have been entered by the Appellate Authority based on convincing evidence given not only by the landlord but also by the dependent daughter in law. As for finding that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 11, having regard to the principles of Law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar(2003(2) KLT 230(FB), we are in agreement with the learned Appellate Authority that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing by adducing cogent evidence that he satisfies both the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 11. The revision necessarily has to fail. 4. As a last request, Sri.Rajit sought for one year's time to surrender the premises. We are not inclined to grant so much of time. Yet, we feel that the tenant can be given seven months RCR.No.177/2010 4 time from today i.e. upto 31/2/2011 subject to the following conditions; 5. The result of the revision is, therefore, as follows; The RCR is dismissed. The Execution Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondent till 1-2-2011 provided the revision petitioner files an affidavit within 10 days from today before the Execution Court or before the Rent Control Court as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 31/2/1011 and undertaking further to discharge arrears of rent if any within one month and to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate as and when the same falls due till such time as he surrenders the building. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit RCR.No.177/2010 5 of time granted as above only if the affidavit as ordered above is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk