IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 302 of 2010(A) ------------------------------ RCA.25/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCP.24/2006 of PRL. RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL ELLAH, PAZHAYA VEEDU, BEACH NORTH WARD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- HAFSHA BAI, SAMANZIL, ANDAMUKKAM WARD, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 523. ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.303 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.302 and 303 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011 ORDER Balakrishnan, J The tenants are the revision petitioners in these two cases. The short point for consideration is whether the bona fide need alleged by the landlady in these cases is true. The building of which the petition schedule shop rooms are parts was purchased by the landlady as per Sale Deed dated 19/07/2000. RCP was filed in the year 2006. Out of the five line rooms, one room is stated to be used by the landlady as car shed. Two other shop rooms were already vacated by the tenants and they are in the possession of the landlady. The landlady contended that the two rooms already got vacated and the petition schedule shop rooms are together intended to be used for conducting a Ladies Centre. It was R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -2- also stated that she wanted to effect alterations and modifications in those rooms to conduct the Ladies Centre. It is stated that her residential house is situated very nearby to the shop rooms mentioned above. According to her, modifications have to be made even in a part of her residential house as she proposed to use that part of the residential house also for conduct of ladies centre as stated by her. 2. The need projected by the landlady was stoutly resisted by the tenant contending that the landlady is an orthodox Muslim lady and that the need projected by her is only a ruse for eviction. It is also contended that her husband is doing wholesale business in paints and that the landlady has no previous experience in the conduct of any such business and as such it is quite unlikely that she would start the business in Ladies Centre as contended by her. The tenants also contended that they are entitled to the R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -3- protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). 3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the learned Rent Controller found that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide. Since the tenants could not prove that there are no other suitable buildings available in the locality, both tenants were ordered to be evicted. 4. In the Rent Control Appeals filed by the tenants strenuous arguments were addressed pointing out certain salient features which according to the tenants would show that the eviction petitions were filed with ulterior motives since the tenants did not execute rent deed as demanded by the landlady. The Appellate Authority after hearing both sides concurred with the view taken by the learned Rent Controller. 5. Sri.K.Subhashchandra Bose, learned counsel for the revision petitioners have taken us through the various R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -4- grounds raised in these revision petitions. The learned counsel submitted that there is a categoric admission made by PW1/the landlady that ever since the purchase of the property in the year 2000 her intention was to retain the tenants and for that purpose she had demanded the tenant to execute a rent deed. It is in evidence that other tenants had executed fresh rent deeds to the new landlord evidently as a token of attornment. The learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the admission made by PW1 in cross examination that just prior to the sending of notice which preceded the filing of the RCP she had demanded the tenant to execute a rent deed. This according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would prove positively that the intention of the landlady was only to get the rent enhanced by executing a fresh rent deed. This argument has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the landlady. It is argued by the learned counsel for the R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -5- landlady that what is discernible from her admission is that she demanded execution of fresh rent deed after the landlady purchased the property on 19/07/2000. The landlady would be always anxious to get fresh rent deeds executed by the tenants to avoid future complications. That does not mean that the intention was to get the rent enhanced. That apart it is always reasonable for the landlord to demand reasonable enhancement of rent. That will not show that there is any mala fide on the part of the landlord. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently argued that this point was not properly adverted to by the learned Appellate Authority. But we are not persuaded to accept that submission since the learned Appellate Authority has discussed the evidence in detail and has come to a conclusion that the need projected by her is bona fide. 6. The other ground that has been projected by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -6- landlady has already obtained vacant possession of two shop rooms in the very same larger building, had the need been genuine and honest she would have actually started her proposed trade or business as Ladies Centre. But admittedly she did not start her business in those two rooms and thus, according to the learned counsel, landlady's non- occupation of those two rooms for the purpose for which these two rooms are also sought to be evicted would reflect on the lack of bona fides. But the very case put forwarded by the landlady is that all the shop rooms are to be occupied by her for conducting the Ladies Centre as a large scale concern. So much so, the tenant cannot dictate that the landlady should first start her business/trade in the two rooms already got vacated. According to PW1, apart from the four rooms mentioned earlier including the petition schedule shop rooms, she intends to use part of her residential house also for accommodating the lady tailors R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -7- etc. who will be employed for stitching, tailoring etc. That would actually show the bona fides of the claim. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit that the need projected is only a pretext for eviction. But that argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that PW1 herself mounted the witness box and testified as to the need projected by her. Inspite of the incisive cross examination, the evidence remained un- shattered. Therefore, we find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the two courts below. We are also reminded ourselves of the contours of this court's jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. The power of revision is circumscribed that the revisional court cannot substitute its view in the place of the concurrent findings entered by the two authorities below. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below. 8. As the tenant could not substantiate the claim for R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -8- protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3), the orders of eviction passed under Section 11(3) of the Act are only to be confirmed. We do so. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would fervently request that at least one year's time be granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Though her request was opposed by the learned counsel for the landlady considering all aspects we are inclined to grant time till 15/01/12. 10. The result is that, both the revisions will stand dismissed. The tenant/revision petitioners are granted time till 15/01/12 to vacate the petition schedule premises on condition that they should file separate affidavits within three weeks from today undertaking to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule buildings on or before 15/01/12 and that they will discharge the entire arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and further that R. C. R. No.302 and 303 of 2010 -9- they will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rates as and when the same falls due. The tenant will be entitled to get the benefit of time granted as above only if the affidavit as mentioned above is filed and the undertakings contained therein are honoured. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-