IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 305 of 2011() ------------------------ (R.C.A. NO.39/2005 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY,THALASSERY IN RCP NO.223/2002 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT KANNUR) REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- PUTHIYA PARAMBATH PULLUNDAYIL KUNHI MOHAMMED, S/O. MAYANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, PEN CENTRE, CAMP BAZAR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- MRS. VELIKAKATH JAMEELA, D/O. HAMSU, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KASANAKOTTA WARD, KANNUR - 1 AMSOM DESOM PIN 670001 ADV. N NAGARESH FOR CAVEATOR ADV. K.BABU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.305 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub section (3) of Section 11. Answering the need projected by the landlady for accommodating her son for conducting business, the tenant strongly disputed bona fides of the need. He will also contend that the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Further he contended that at any rate he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 also. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and in the enquiry the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A16, Ext.B1 to B11 and oral RCR.No.305/2011 2 evidence of PW1 and RWs1 to 3. On evaluating the evidence the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide one. In fact, the evidence adduced by PW1, the dependent son of the landlady for whose need the building was sought for, was so inspiring that no dent could be made on the same in cross examination by the tenant. The Rent Control Court found that the rent control petition was not liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11 and that the landlady cannot found guilty of having suppressed any material facts as alleged by the tenant. It was further found that the tenant was unsuccessful in establishing that he satisfied either of the two ingredients of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. 2. The tenant carried the matter in appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence and has concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. RCR.No.305/2011 3 3. Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us strenuously on the basis of the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is tainted by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by section 20 and hence there is every justification for this court to interfere with the above judgment. 4. Sri.K.Babu, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady who had lodged a caveat would oppose the submissions of Mr.Mohamed Mustaque. He reminded us of the attenuated nature of our jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that within the above jurisdiction there is no justification for interference. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and gone through the order of the Rent Control Court. According to us, as the findings of fact entered by the learned Appellate Authority are founded on evidence and as there are reasonable findings, there is no scope for interference within the well delineated RCR.No.305/2011 4 contors of our jurisdiction under Section 20. The revision necessarily has to fail and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk