IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 4 of 2009() ---------------------- RCA.101/1998 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.267/1996 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR (& 269/1996) .................... REVISION PETITI0NER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- PALLIVALAPPIL HAFSATHBI,D/O.HAMSA HAJI, AGED 51 YEARS,HOUSE WIFE,MARAKARKANDY, KANNUR-1, AMSOM DESOM,KANNUR-670003. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- MALLIATTI AYISSU, AGED 58 YRS, NO OCCUPATION,RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.MY 16/78, MARAKARKANDY,KANNUR-1, AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR-670003. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.4 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlady is in revision and she challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority vacating the order of eviction which was passed in her favour by the Rent Control Court under Sub Section(3) of Section 11. The building in question is a line building. It came out in evidence that the landlady was presently residing in a building, which originally belonged to her mother, a palatial building situated in a compound having an extent of one and half acres. It also came out that the said building had a number of rooms and had all modern amenities unlike the petition schedule building which apparently is not suitable for residential occupation by a person who has high social and financial status like that of the landlady. The above aspect of the matter, it appears weighed with the Rent Control Appellate Authority considerably. Another aspect, which weighed with the learned Appellate Authority, was that previously the landlady had filed a Rent Control Petition for RCR.No.4/2009 2 evicting the tenant of a building adjacent to the petition schedule building on the need that the landlady's only brother Sri.Muhammed Ali is to be accommodated. The Appellate Authority noticed that the present need is that since upon the demise of the mother the landlady's brother Muhammed Ali has come to occupy the tharawad house where the landlady is residing, the landlady is experiencing inconvenience to continue residence in that house along with her brother. The above version of the landlady did not inspire the Appellate Authority. According to the Appellate Authority, eviction was obtained by the landlady in respect of the building which is adjacent to the petition schedule building by virtue of Ext.A2 proceedings. The adjacent building is presently in the possession of the landlady herself. Need of the landlady's brother can easily be accomplished by occupying the adjacent building. Since the tenant, who was in possession of Ext.A2 building was evicted on the ground that the landlady's brother is to be accommodated, the landlady can continue her residence in the building where she is presently residing since she is also admittedly co-owner of that building. RCR.No.4/2009 3 2. On reading the judgment of the Appellate Authority and hearing the submissions of Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we feel that there has been misreading of the pleadings by the learned Appellate Authority to some extent. The Appellate Authority, seems to have been under the impression that the need projected is that of residential occupation of the landlady and her family and brother Sri.Mohammed Ali and his family. In fact, the need projected is residential occupation by the landlady and her family only, in view of the bitterness between the landlady and her brother after thedemise of the mother over the settlement of family properties. But, then as rightly submitted by Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque, this is a case where the Rent Control Court, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts, appreciated the evidence adduced by the landlady and was not inspired by the evidence. We also feel that in the nature of the need projected and in the light of the evidence which has already come on record in the case, the need projected could have been best established only if the landlady's brother Muhammed Ali was also examined as a witness. Sri.Ramkumar Nambiar submitted RCR.No.4/2009 4 that if opportunity is given, it may be possible for the landlady to examine her brother also and so that he also gives evidence in respect of the need projected in the RCP. We feel that opportunity can be given. 3. It is submitted before us that the contract rent of Rs.325/- presently paid by the respondent is low. The contract rent was fixed years ago. We feel that the respondent has to pay reasonable rent for the building as he is continuing in possession of the same. 4. The result of the discussion, therefore, is as follows; i). The Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court are set aside and the RCP is remanded to the Rent Control Court. That court is directed to permit the revision petitioner / landlady to examine her brother Sri.Muhammed Ali as a witness on her side and also to adduce whatever further evidence she may have in support of her case. If further evidence is adduced by the landlady, the Rent Control Court RCR.No.4/2009 5 will permit the respondent/tenant to adduce counter evidence. The Rent Control Court is directed to pass revised judgment on the basis of the entirety of the evidence which comes on record at the earliest and at any rate within four months of the parties entering appearance pursuant to this order. ii). We also tentatively refix the rent payable by the respondent at Rs.650/- per month with effect from 1/11/2009. This tentative re fixation is subject to the right of either of the parties to move the competent court for fixation of fair rent. Iii). The parties will appear before the Rent Control Court on 16/10/2009. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk