IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 227 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.9/2000 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ALAPPUZHA. RCP.36/1996 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------- ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, AGED 65 YEARS, A.M.C. NO.XVIII/7, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL. PETITIONERS: 2. JAMEELA, AGED 55 YEARS, AMC. NO.XVIII/7, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. NIZAR, DO. DO. 4. NAVAZ, DO.DO. 5. VAHIDA, DO. DO. ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 7-9-09 IN IA. 2612/09 IN RCR.227/05. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. KUNJU MOIDEEN, PUNNAKKAL PURAYIDOM, VELLAKINAR, ALAPPUZHA (NOW AT P.O.BOX NO.57, SECO CENTRAL EAST, RIYADH, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 70, RESI: IN THYPARAMBIL, VELLAKINAR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. HALEEMA, PUNNAKKAL PURAYIDOM, VELLAKINAR, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL FOR R2 SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON / / , THE COURT ON 14/02/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. 1748 OF 2005 DISMISSED SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE 14-2-2011 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE (TRUE COPY) P.S. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. No. 227 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Bhavadasan, J. Being aggrieved by the concurrent orders of eviction the tenant has come up in revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 2. The petition for eviction was filed on two grounds, viz., 11(2)(b) and 11(3). Several contentions were raised. It was found by the Rent Control Court that rent was kept in arrears. It was also found that the landlord had established his bona fide need for the building. Further it was found that the tenant had failed to establish the protection he had sought under second proviso to Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed on both the grounds. 3. In appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority independently considered the evidence on record and RCR. 227/05 -2- concurred with the Rent Control Court in its conclusions. The result was that the order of eviction was confirmed. 4. Before this Court, the ground urged is regarding protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965. Both the authorities considered this aspect in considerable detail. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has observed that though there is no specific finding regarding the first limb of second proviso to Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 by the Rent Control Court, on an evaluation of the evidence the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that it could be concluded that the tenant is depending mainly for his livelihood on the income derived from the business carried on by him in the petition schedule premises. However, it was found that the tenant was unable to show that no other premises were available in the locality. The Rent Control Appellate Authority relied on the evidence furnished by the Commissioner and the Commissioner's Report and disbelieved the evidence RCR. 227/05 -3- furnished by CPW-1. Finding the tenant had failed to establish the second limb of second proviso to Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965, the order of eviction under Section 11(3) was confirmed. 5. Before this Court the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the courts below ought to have accepted the fact that no other buildings were available in the locality and there is no evidence to the contrary. The revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 is very limited. Unless it is shown that the findings suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the orders of the courts below. 6. The commissioner reported that there are vacant premises available in the locality. The tenant though examined as CPW-1 the courts below have found that his evidence is not acceptable. Even though CPW-1 had pleaded that the three rooms made mention of by the RCR. 227/05 -4- Commissioner are being used by him for business, the Commissioner's report shows otherwise. Both the authorities also found that there were other premises available in the locality and those rooms were available on rent. Therefore the conclusions reached by the authorities below are based on appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any infirmities. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of both the authorities below. 7. The result is this revision is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. We do so, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner then sought for some time to vacate the premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that reasonable time can be granted on the following terms and conditions: 1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within two weeks from today before the execution court or the RCR. 227/05 -5- Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule premises on or before 31-10-2011; 2) and undertaking further that the arrears of rent if any, as on date will be discharged within a period of one month from today; 3) and further that occupational charges at the rate of Rs.150/- per mensem or the existing rate of rent, whichever is more; 4) and the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted above only if he files the affidavit on time and the undertakings are honoured. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) ksv/-