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 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 684 of 2002() --------------------- RCA.7/1999 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THRISSUR RCP.9/1994 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- MARTHOMA SYRIAN COMPANY (P) LTD.,MARTHOM A BUILDING,HIGH ROAD,THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,GEORGE S/O.CHEERAN CHAKKUNNY, MISSION QUARTERS,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.ROHINI V.MENON RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. C.L.ANTONY,S/O.CHETUPUZHAKKARAN LATE LONAPPAN,CHETUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE,MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR-1. 2. MRS.VALSA JOY W/O.LATE JOY S/O. CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN LONAPPAN,S.T.NAGAR (MISSION QUARTERS)THRISSUR TOWN. 3. LONEY JOY,S/O.CHETUPUZHAKKARAN JOY, S.T.NAGAR (MISSION QUARTERS) THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.MAHESH MENON (ADV.COMMR.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 773 OF 2002 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.R.P. Nos. 684 of 2002 & 773 of 2002 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Landlord is the petitioner in both these revisions. The revision petitioners sought to evict the respondents/ tenant/ on the ground of additional accommodation under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Need projected in the revision petition was that the petitioner company, which is a kuri company, is presently conducting kuri business in the second floor of a three storied building, a part of which are the petition schedule premises. The petition schedule premises are in fact two rooms in the ground floor of the above three storied building. Need urged was that the petitioner company needs additional accommodation for the purpose of expanding the ongoing kuri business and also for starting a new venture of gold loan business. The bonafides of the above need was stiffly disputed by the revision petitioners. CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 2 They contended that at any rate the hardship which will be sustained by them who are respectively conducting jewellery business and stationery business in the building which are subject matter of RCP.Nos.9/1994 and 2/1995 will far outweigh the apparent advantages which may be gained by the landlord company. The Rent Control Court after evaluating the evidence which consisted of Ext.A1 to A9 (g), B1 to B21 and testimonies of PW1 and 2 and RW1 to 3 would come to the conclusion that the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord was not bonafide. That court also found that at any rate the hardship which will be sustained by the tenant on account of the order passed against them will outweigh the advantages gained by landlord out of the eviction order. Even though appeals were preferred by the landlord and the appellate authority made a thorough re-appraisal of the entire evidence that authority also agreed with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed. It is challenging the common judgment of the appellate authority dismissing the appeals that the present revisions are filed. In these revisions various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 3 appellate authority. 2. I.A. No.3365/2009 was filed by the tenant in CRP No.773/2002. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the I.A. that the first floor portion of the three storied building of which the petition schedule building is a part and was occupied by a Bank fell vacant and the said portion is let out by the landlord company to a different tenant by name Brighty C. Paul and a new business under the name and style of M/s. Golden Bell Textiles and Furnishings is now being conducted in that portion. According to the tenant, the first floor portion which fell vacant, was more ideal for the need for additional accommodation projected by the landlord and the fact that the landlord did not utilise the first floor portion for their purpose indicates that the need for additional accommodation is not bona fide. On that basis, the I.A. was filed seeking appointment of a commissioner for conduct of a local inspection to report on the following matters; 1. To report as to who is occupying the first floor in the building where the bank was functioning. 2. To report about the nature of the business, the name under which the same is conducted and CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 4 the details of the owner of the business, by verifying the license issued by the local authority, but noticing the telephone numbers and such other details as may be required, concerning the room in which the bank was functioning. 3. To note of the area in which the bank was functioning. 3. We allowed the commission application by our order dated 4th December, 2010 and appointed Advocate Sri.Mahesh Menon of this court as commissioner. Sri.Mahesh Menon after conducting inspection on 9/2/2009 in the presence of both the parties submitted an interim report on 10/12/2009 and final commission report on 12/12/2009. The commission report will show that as alleged by the tenant, the first floor portion of the building, which was previously occupied by the Bank, is presently under the occupation of Mr. Brighty C. Paul who is now conducting textile business therein under the name and style of Golden Bell. The commission report gives precise details regarding the total area let out to Brighty C.Paul. The report also shows that the landlord company is conducting their business in the second floor of the very same three storied building. No objections were filed by the landlord to the CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 5 commission report submitted by Sri.Mahesh Menon. 4. We have heard the submissions of Smt.Rohini V.Menon, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord and those of Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the respondents in CRP No.773/2002 and Sri.Jijo Paul learned counsel for the respondents in CRP No.684/2002. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would assail the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court very strongly. According to the learned counsel, the standards required for establishing bona fides of the need for additional accommodation under sub section (8) of Section 11 are not so stringent as the standards for establishing bona fides of need for own occupation under sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned counsel submitted that additional accommodation can be allowed even if the same amounts to a luxury. This aspect of the matter was not noticed by the authorities below. The revision petitioner company was a reputed kuri company which wanted to conduct its business in style in premises which are extensive. Apart from kuri business the company wanted to start gold loan business also CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 6 and for conducting the gold loan business, the ground floor premises was most suitable than the second floor premises where the company is presently having its activities. 6. Sri.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel and Sri.Jijo Paul, learned counsel for the tenants would resist the submissions of Smt.Rohini V.Menon. They reminded us of the contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, in which we are presently sitting. According to them, this court is not expected to reappraise the evidence and come to different factual conclusions when the conclusions arrived at by the fact finding authorities are concurred and founded on evidence. They would highlight the report submitted by Sri.Mahesh Menon. According to them, that report is to be accepted as a true and correct report. Once that is done, it will become necessary to reiterate the decision of the authorities below dismissing the RCP on the ground of additional accommodation. 7. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. It is true that the standards for establishing the bona fides of need for additional accommodation as envisaged by sub section (8) of Section 11 are not so rigorous CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 7 as those for establishing the need for own occupation under sub section (3) of Section 11. But nevertheless in terms of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11, the need for additional accommodation is also to be shown as a bona fide. The word bona fide is almost synonymous to honesty and genuineness. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the need projected by the landlord company to occupy the petition schedule premises for expanding their business is a genuine one. According to us, even leaving alone the reasons stated by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, the circumstance that the first floor of the three storied building i.e. the floor immediately underneath the floor where the landlord company is presently conducting the business, fell vacant and the landlord did not occupy that floor for accomplishing its need will strongly indicate that the need projected by the landlord in the RCP is not bona fide. If it is for expansion of the on going kuri business the first floor portion will be ideal since in the second floor kuri business is already being conducted. For the gold loan business also in this case the first floor portion is suitable since a major commercial bank with its safety deposit vaults was CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 8 functioning in that floor. If the landlord was harbouring genuine need for additional accommodation, the landlord would have occupied the first floor. 8. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that the findings entered therein, that the need of the landlord projected under sub section (8) of Section 11 is not bona fide, have been concurrently entered on the basis of oral and circumstantial evidence actually available in the case. We do not find any infirmity and much less illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 warranting interference with those findings. However, we notice that the rent which is being paid by the respondents to the landlord company for the buildings which are situated on commercially very important area of the Thrissur Corporation is ridiculously low and not in tune with the current rent rates existing in that part of the city. If the buildings are let out today, the same may fetch several thousand of rupees as monthly rent apart from attractive amounts towards security. However, we are inclined to refix the rent of both the buildings at Rs.3,000/- CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 9 per mensem only. 9. The result of the above discussion is as follows:- Both the CRPs are dismissed. The rent payable in CRP.684/02 (building which is subject matter of RCP.9/94) is refixed tentatively with effect from 1.2.2010 at Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Similarly the rent payable by the respondent in CRP.773/02 (the building which is subject matter of RCP.2/95) is refixed tentatively with effect from 1.2.2010 at Rs.3,000/- per mensum prospectively. It is made clear that our refixation as above is only tentative. It is open to both sides to move Rent Control Court under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of rent. Unless and until fair rent is fixed under proceedings under Section 5 the respondents will be liable to pay at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Parties will suffer their costs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE okb/dpk CRP.Nos.684/2002 & another 10 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------- CRP Nos.684 & 773/2002 O R D E R 21st January,2009