IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 268 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.38/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM RCP.48/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CR.PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------- A.VARGHESE, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 43, TC 4/1224, KURAVANKONAM, KAWDIRAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ NAZEEMA AYOOB KHAN, AGED 40, ARATHY MADAV, TC 3/2577, NEAR MARAPPALAM, EAST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 268 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and he impugns order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground of bona fide own occupation. The revision petitioner is carrying on business in the petition schedule building apart from residing therein. The case of the landlady was that she is presently residing in a rented building and that the said building does not have proper road access. The landlady's daughter is suffering from serious epilepsy and landlady's husband is a chronic diabetic and he has got diabetics related other ailments also. Hence, the need projected was that the landlady and her family wants to come over to the petition schedule building for setting up residence. The bona fides of the need and the claim of the respondent/landlady were stiffly resisted by the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, the need projected is only a ruse to evict the revision petitioner. The RCR.No.268/2009 2 petitioner claimed protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The Rent Control Court conducted a very detailed enquiry into the RCP and the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A12 and the oral evidence of PW1 on the side of the landlady. On the side of the revision petitioner the same consisted of Ext.B1 to B3, Ext.X1 and the oral evidence of CPW1 (revision petitioner himself) and CPW2(an official of the Accommodation Controller 's office). The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence, concluded that the need projected by the landlady was bona fide. It was also concluded that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. In fact, it became evident that the tenant is having another building of his own. 2. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence, however, concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. Sri.M.Ramaswamy Pillai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us elaborately on all those grounds. Sri.Ramaswamy Pillai RCR.No.268/2009 3 submitted that the respondent is not going to set up residence in the petition schedule building. The intention of the respondent is only to let out the building on a higher rent after evicting the revision petitioner. As regards the other building found to be owned by the revision petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that the said building was not suitable for residence as well as for conducting the business as the petition schedule building. As his last plea, he requested atleast one year's time be granted to the revision petitioner, so that alternate accommodation can be identified. 3. All the submissions of Sri.Ramaswamy Pillai were resisted by Sri.R.S.Kalkura, who had lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent/landlady. Sri.Kalkura Submitted before us that the respondent has no intention whatsoever to let out the building and that the submission of the learned counsel can be recorded by us as an undertaking given on behalf of the respondent. Sri.Kalkura very stiffly opposed the request for grant of time. The condition of daughter is so precarious that unless the landlady is permitted to shift the residence to the petition schedule building immediately, the daughter's life is in RCR.No.268/2009 4 peril. 4. We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. Having guaged the decision of the Appellate Authority by the para meters which are applicable to exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we are of the view that the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which is the final court on facts under the Statutory scheme, does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. All the findings entered by the Authorities below are founded on the evidence which are available on record. Necessarily the RCR has to fail. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we are inclined to grant time to the revision petitioner till 31/5/2010 for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. 5. The result of the above discussion is as follows; The RCR is dismissed and the Execution Court is directed not to order and effect the delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/5/2010 subject to the following conditions; RCR.No.268/2009 5 The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the Rent Control Court undertaking to surrender possession of the petition schedule building peacefully to the respondent on or before 31/5/2010. It will be undertaken through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if any will be discharged within one month and that occupational charges at the current rent rate will be paid as and when the same falls due till actual surrender of the building is made. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if the affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk