IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No. 260 of 2004() ------------------------ RCA.88/1998 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, THRISSUR RCP.18/1993 of RENT CONTROL COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS IN RCR /RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 IN RCA/ PETITIONERS 2 TO 11 IN RCP ------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHU, S/O.PAINADATH KALLIVALAPPIL POULOSE, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. (DIED L.R.S IMPLEADED ADDL.R15 TO R17) 2. CHERIYAN, S/O.DO. DO. IN DO. DO. 3. JOSE, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 4. GEORGE, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 5. MARY,W/O.PAINADATH KALLIVALAPPIL LATE ITTERA, PETTA VILLAGE, THIRIVANANTHAPURAM. 6. GRACY, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 7. RECY, D/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 8. ANTHOSH, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 9. JOSE, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 10. DOLLY, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN RCR/APPELLANTS IN RCA RESPNDENTS 2 & 4 IN RCP/RESPONDENTS 3 TO 14 IN RCR/RESPONDENTS 11 TO 22 IN RCA/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 16 IN RCP. -------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY, S/O.MALAKKARAN ANTONY, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.(DIED LRs IMPLEADED ADDL. R18 TO 25) 2. PAUL, S/O.DO. RESIDING IN DO. DO. 3. ROSY, W/O.MALAKKARAN LATE VARKEY, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. MINI, D/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 5. MEENA, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 6. SOPHY, D/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 7. REJI VARGHESE, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 8. SOJA VARGHESE, D/O.MALAKKARAN LATE VARKEY, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 9. MARY JOSE, W/O.MALAKKARAN LATE JOSE, IN DO. DO. 10. RUBY JAMES, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 11. BENCY BABY, D/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 12. ALEX JOSE, S/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 13. RENNY BABY, D/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 14. SAJAN JOSE, S/O. DO. IN DO. DO. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 15 TO 25 IMPLEADED. ADDL.RESPONDENTS 15 TO 17 15. GEO MATHEW, S/O. LATE MATHU, RESIDING AT KALLIVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOMBARA, IRINJALAKUDA. 16. AMMINI MATHEW, W/O. DO. IN DO. DO. 17. GIJO MATHEW, GREEN LAND TRADING, P.O.BOX 15689,MANAMA BAHRAIN. (ADDL.RESPNODENTS 15 TO 17 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED FIRST PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 29/5/2007 IN I.A. NO.425/2005) ADDL.RESPONDENTS 18 TO 25 18. ELSY, WIDOW OF LATE JOHNY, MALAKARAN HOUSE, GANDHIGAM, IRINJALAKUDA, AGED 58. 19.SHEEBA, D/O. DO. IN DO. AGED 36. 20. SHILSA, D/O. DO. IN DO. AGED 33. 21. SHEEJA. D/O. DO. AGED 31, IN DO. 22. SHEELA, D/O. DO. AGED 29 IN DO. 23. SHYNI, D/O. DO. AGED 27 IN DO 24. SIXSON, S/O. DO. AGED 25 IN DO 25. SAJI, S/O. DO. AGED 23, IN DO. (ADDL.R18 TO 25 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 29/5/2007 IN I.A. NO.426/2005) ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR R2 SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR FOR R15TO17 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1763 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No. 1763/2000 & R.C.R 260/2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlords are in revision being aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction which had been passed in their favour by the Rent Control Court on the ground under clause (3) of sub Section (4) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The building, which is subject matter of RCR No. 260/2004 ,is the ground floor portion of a two storied building belonging to the landlords who filed RCP No. 18/1993 against the tenants invoking the ground under section 11(2(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) & 11 (4) (iii) of Act 2 of 1965. Similarly, the building which is subject matter of CRP No.1763/2000 is the first floor portion of that double storied building and the landlords filed RCP No.17/1993 against the tenant in occupation of that building invoking the same grounds of eviction. The landlords' allegation in the context of ground of arrears of rent in respect of the ground floor portion was that the CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 2 contract rent begin with at Rs. 140/- per month and that the same was enhanced subsequently to Rs.450/- per month and that the rent at that rate is in arrears from July 1993. The allegation in the context of the first floor portion was that begin with the monthly rent of Rs.20/- and that the same was enhanced to Rs.80/- per month subsequently and that rent is in arrears from May 1992. The Rent Control Court came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the contract rent payable by the tenant in RCP No.18/1003 (the ground floor portion) was Rs.175/- per month and that the rent at the rate of Rs.20/- per month payable in respect of the first floor portion was never enhanced at all. The learned Rent Control Court tried the RCP jointly and on evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlords were entitled for order of eviction only on the ground under clause (3) of sub section (4) of Section 11. Since the landlords never preferred appeal against the order declining eviction on the other grounds, in these revisions we need be considered only with the correctness of the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority interfering with the decision of the Rent Control Court CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 3 ordering eviction under section 11 (4) (3). 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the landlords revision petitioners and those of Sri.P.C.Chacko learned counsel for the respondents tenants in and Sri.Dilip Akkara, learned counsel for the tenants in RCR No.260/2004. 3. Sri.Balakrishna Iyer would argue that the learned Appellate Authority was not justified in interfering with the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground under Clause (iii) of sub Section (4) of Section 11. According to the learned senior counsel, it had become evident that the tenants in both the cases had come to have possession of more than one room. That being so, it was for the tenants to adduce cogent evidence and convince the authorities that those buildings are not reasonably sufficient for their requirements. The learned senior counsel submitted that the tenants in RCP No. 18/1003 had come into possession of two rooms in the cathedral complex situated in a commercially important area of the Irinjakuda Municipal town. According to the senior counsel, legislative intendment underlying clause (iii) CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 4 of sub section (4) of Section 11 is that in a situation where there is acute accommodation shortage, the tenants should not be allowed the luxury of having more buildings than what is necessary for them under their possession. 4. All the submissions of Sri.Balakrishna Iyer were resisted by Sri.P.C.Chacko and Sri.Dilip Akkara. Sri.Chacko submitted that there is no proper building to support the eviction ground under clause (3) of sub section (4) of Section 11. According to the learned counsel, parties were more concerned with the order of eviction which were sought under Section 11 (3) and 11 (4) (ii) also. Though it is true that there are averments in the rent control petition to the effect that the tenants are having possession of other building, those averments have been made in the context of the claim by the tenants for eligibility for protection of the second proviso. According to the learned counsel, evidence also will not justify passage of order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (iii). 5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have made a quick survey of the pleadings and evidence to the extent necessary for appreciating CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 5 the submissions addressed before us. This jurisdiction under Section 20, in which we are presently sitting, is revisional jurisdiction. Under the statutory scheme, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the final court on facts. It is true that the objective underlying the eviction ground is to avoid a situation of tenants enjoying more buildings than what is necessary for their requirements. Nevertheless it is trite that when eviction is sought on the ground of section 11 (4) (iii), it is for the landlord to adduce prima facie evidence to show that the tenant has come to have possession of other buildings reasonably sufficient for the requirement for which the tenant is using the tenanted building at the time when he is sought to be evicted. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents though ground under section 11 (4) (3) is also quoted in the RCPs, we do not find any statutory pleadings for constituting the statutory eviction ground under Section 11 (4) (3). In the evidence also, what we notice is that even in chief examination of the landlord as PW1, it is not stated that the tenants are liable to be eviction on the ground that they have come into possession of the buildings more reasonably sufficient for the requirements for CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 6 which the building in question were let out to them. The Appellate Authority rightly noticed that the only tangible item of evidence on the basis of which the landlords claim to have proved the eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) is Ext.C1 commission report. We notice that the Appellate Authority has analysied Ext.C1 and come to the conclusion that it cannot be held that the tenants have come to have possession of the building at least reasonably sufficient for the tenants' requirement at the time when the rent control petitions were instituted against the tenants. 6. We do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. At the same time, we notice that monthly rent of Rs.175/- and Rs.20/- found by the Authorities below to be payable to the respondents/revision petitioners landlords is very low when we take into account the fact that the building is situated in a commercially important area of Irinjalakuda Municipal Town. We are therefore inclined to refix the rent payable by the respondents/tenants tentatively with effect from 1/2/2010 subject to the right of either parties to move the Rent Control CRP.No.1763/2000 & another 7 Court for fixation of fair rent. Accordingly, we refix the rent payable by the tenants against whom the RCP Nos.18/1993 was filed at Rs.1,000/- per month and the rent payable by the tenant against whom RCP No.17/93 was filed at Rs.800/- per month. We make it clear that the above refixation is prospective with effect from 1st February 2010 and is subject to the right of either parties to move the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent. We also make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the landlords initiating fresh proceedings for evicting the tenants on any available ground. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE dpk